387 
J?53s 


THE 

imzm  imiii  poligi. 


AN  INVESTIGATION 

INTO  THE 

Canses  of  lleBecltae  of  our  SMpjlni  Interesl 


COMPRISING  A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  BEFORE  THE 
NATIONAL  TARIFF  CONVENTION  ;  AN  ADDRESS 
BEFORE  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  POST  OFFICES 
AND  POST  ROADS,  AND  AN  ANSWER 
TO  THE  MISREPRESENTATIONS 
OF  Mr.  DAVID  A.  WELLS. 


BT 

JOHN   ROACH,  Esq. 


Amebicak  Protectionist  Publishing  Compant, 
805  Broadway,  New  Yorlf. 


5E7 


OUR  MERCHANT  MARINE. 


ADDRESS  OF  JOHN  ROACH,  ESQ. 

Mr.  President,  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Conven- 
tion: The  war  drove  American  ships  from  the  ocean. 
American  shipping  interests  were  thoroughly  destroyed 
by  the  operation  of  the  last  war;  and  the  industry 
which  was  lost  to  America  was  replaced  by  the  indus- 
try of  the  most  grasping,  enterprising,  and  intelligent 
of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.  In  order  that  you,  gen- 
tlemen, manufacturers,  should  understand  the  extent 

"  to  which  the  American  shipping  interest  has  a  right  to 
•    I-  complain,  I  put  it  to  you  in  this  plain,  blunt  way: 

(  What  would  you,  as  manufacturers,  think  if  your  fac- 
c^'  tories  had  been  literally  swept  out  of  existence  by  some 

'^process,  and  their  place  taken  by  English  manufac- 
turers; and  what  remedy  would  you  ask  to  have  them 
restored  to  their  original  condition  of  prosperity  and 
usefulness.  The  only  remedy  you  could  ask  would  be 
a  proper  protection:  and  that  is  the  only  remedy  which 
the  shipbuilding  and  shipowning  interests  of  the  coun- 
try ask  of  you  now.  We  simply  ask  you  to  extend  to 
us  the  helping  hand  that  you  have  extended  to  your- 
•  <;  selves,  to  enable  us  to  put  the  shipbuilding  and  ship- 
owning  interests  of  the  United  States  on  the  basis  to 
which  it  is  justly  entitled. 

I,  probably,  have  the  strongest  temptation  of  any  man 
in  the  whole  manufacturing  interest  to  become  a  free- 
trader; but  I  am  an  American  who  believes  that  the 
true  doctrine  is  to  buy  from  American  producers,  know- 
ing, as  I  do,  that  it  is  the  only  safe  way.  In  a  spirit  of 
explanation,  and  not  in  a  spirit  of  egotism,  I  will  read 
you  a  little  list  of  the  articles  that  are  required  to  carry 
out  the  contracts  I  have  on  hand,  or  have  undertaken 
between  the  1st  of  January,  1880,  and  the  1st  of  Jan- 
uary, 1882.  They  are:  3450  tons  of  pig-iron,  in  round 
numbers  representing  a  value  of  $86,250;  manufactured 
iron  plates,  bars,  angles,  rivets,  forgings,  etc.,  47,824,000 
lbs.,  representing  a  value  of  $1,673,840;  copper,  805,000 
lbs.,  representing  a  value  of  $193,200. 


4 


Then  without  giving  a  detailed  account  of  the  value 
of  every  item,  there  is  lead,  127,500  lbs.;  lumber, 
6  750  000  feet;  coal,  18,000  tons.  I  doubt  if,  when 
this  free  shipping  question  was  before  Congress  for 
many  years,  anybody  v/as  so  tempted  to  be  on  the  side 
of  free  shipbuilding  as  the  poor  shipbuilder.  If  our 
manufacturers  understood  how  powerful  a  wedge  the 
free-ship  bill  was  in  the  interest  of  free  trade.  Some  of 
our  manufacturers  had  an  idea  that  it  did  not  affect 
their  interest,  but  the  following  statement  will  explain 

I  will  not  take  up  your  time  by  remarks  on  each  of 
the  many  articles  contained  in  this  list;  but  I  will  read 
it  just  as  it  is. 

Material  and  Outfits  for  Steamers  Completed  and  Coiy 
tracted  for  by  Mr.  John  Boach  &  Son,  from  Jan.  1, 
1880,  to  Jan.  1,  1882. 

Pig-iron,  3450  tons   $86,250  00 

Manufactured  iron  plates,  angles,  bars, 

rivets  forginirs,  etc.,  47,824,000  lbs. . . .  1,673,840  00 

Copper,  805,000  lbs   193,200  00  . 

Lead,  127,500  lbs   ^^^'^^^ 

Lumber,  6,750,000  feet  «   305,000  00 

Coal,  18,000  tons. . . .,   9Q>Q^Q 

$2,357,215  00 

Anchors    9,780  96 

Chains    22,968  42 

Boas  ;    16,650  00 

Steam  windlasses,  manufactured  by  the 
Am.  Ship  Windlass  Co,  Providence, 

J  ^  ,   30,200  00 

Capstans,  steam  and  hand   8,^0^ 

Life-preservers   8,6.0  00 

i'-:^"*"^*^  ::::::::  'SSS 

Deck  iineV.V.'.V.V.V.V.V. V    14,^36  80 

Lamps  and  lanterns   16,800  00 

Naut  ical  instruments  -   . 

Flags   4.200  00 

lligging  wire,  manilla,  and  blocks   of'^nn  aa 

Sails  and  awnings    io  A^n  nn 

Canvas  for  decks.   13,8o0  00 


s 


Plumbing  and  brassing   Sqha 

Steam-pumps   27,800  00 

Steam-gauges   o,ouu  uu 

Upholstery,  bedding,  linen,  etc   ^^l'5?6  60 

Stoves  and  kitchen  and  cooking  utensils.  17,809  60 

Crockery  and  glassware   11,606  41 

Gas  and  steam  pipe  and  fittings   28,000  00 

Hoisting-enfrines   35,600  00 

Spars  for  masts. ,   13,500  00 

Paints  and  oil   ^^'2^^ 

Joiners'  hardware,  loclis,  screws,  etc   16,700  00 

Covering  for  boilers,  pipes,  etc.   18,000  00 

Engineers'  tools  and  instruments   9,000  00 

Drawing  paper,  tracing  cloth,  etc   3,500  00 

Cabin  and  stateroom  furniture,  chairs, 

tables,  brushes,  pails,  baskets,  cuspa- 

dores,  etc   15,675  00 

Glass  for  side  lights  and  windows   5,860  00 

Porcelain  and  glass  name-plates   2,500  00 

$674,350  83 

Above  $2,357,215  00 

674,350  00 


Total  amount  |3,031,565  00 

The  shipyards  of  Harlan  &  Hollingsworth, 
Cramp  &  Sons,  and  others,  use  goods  of 
the  same  character. 

Here  is  a  sum  total  of  $3,031,565  worth  of  supplies 
bought  in  this  country  in  one  year.  (Applause.)  There 
never  was  a  shrewder  and  a  more  determined  blow 
aimed  to  strike  down  the  whole  protective  system  than 
there  was  in  that  free-ships  movement.  It  went  fur- 
ther than  that,  because  it  gave  a  great  opportunity  for 
smui2:gHng,  and  cheating  the  government.  The  owner 
of  a^'sliip  come  here  with  a  ship  fitted  up  with  every- 
thing; he  could  sell  his  whnl-  outfit  without  paying 
duty,  and  go  back  to  England  and  refit.  Who  ever 
thought  that  the  free-shipping  bill  could  have  resuUed 
to  the  interest  of  the  snmggler  of  free  linens  and  free 
upholstery? 

This  Convention  is  called  together,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  our  prescni  reve- 
nue laws.    It  is  widely  claimed,  and  no  doul't  it  is 


6 


true,  that  there  are  some  modifications  necessary  to  be 
made  in  those  laws.  This  would  be  wholly  reasonable, 
as  great  changes  have  taken  place  since  those  laws  were 
enacted.  The  subject  is  of  the  greatest  importance  to 
the  whole  country,  for  the  continued  agitation  of  the 
question  of  free  trade  and  tariff  for  revenue  only  has 
disturbed  capital  and  labor,  and  checked  many  an  en- 
terprise. If  there  is  no  justice  in  the  complaints  of  the 
advocates  of  free  trade  and  tariff  for  revenue  only,  that 
fact  should  be  made  known.  If  there  is  reason  for  a 
change  of  policy  or  a  modification  of  existing  duties, 
that  fact  should  be  made  known.  What  we  want,  gen- 
tlemen, is  to  get  at  the  facts,  and  at  the  whole  of  them, 
and  then  have  this  matter  settled,  so  that  capital  and 
labor  may  know  just  what  is  our  fixed  national  policy, 
and  may  feel  secure. 

If  changes  in  our  revenue  laws  are  necessary,  how 
shall  they  be  made.  Would  it  be  wise  to  make  them 
without  thorough  investigation?  There  is  scarcely  an 
industry  in  the  whole  country  which  is  not  affected  by 
those  laws  in  some  way.  The  object  of  this  Convention, 
therefore,  is  to  make  a  careful  investigation  of  the  reve- 
nue laws  and  their  operation,  and  see  whether  they  are 
for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  country.  I  know  of  no 
work  more  important  to  be  done,  and  to  be  done  right. 

Andrew  Jackson,  whose  broad  statesmanship  will  not 
be  questioned  any  more  than  will  his  love  for  America 
and  her  institutions,  said:  "Build  your  factories  and 
workshops  close  to  your  plantations  and  your  farms, 
and  you  will  confer  inestimable  and  innumerable  bless- 
ings on  the  whole  of  the  American  people  by  that  pol- 
icy." It  was  these  words  of  Jackson  that  set  me  to 
studying  the  meaning  and  aim  of  protection.  What  do 
his  words  mean?  Do  they  mean  that  we  should  take 
the  product  raised  in  Tennessee  to  Great  Britain,  3500 
miles  away  from  the  plantation?  Ah,  no!  They  mean 
that  Jackson  recognized  that  by  doing  both  the  raisnig 
and  the  manufacturing  at  home  we  should  confer  mes- 
timable  blessings  on  our  people.  They  mean  that  he 
recognized  God's  plan  in  making  men  fit  for  a  diversity 
of  employments,  and  that  if  this  nation  was  to  become 
great  it  must  furnish  employment  within  itself  for  all 
these  diversified  gifts.  That  idea  of  Jackson's,  it  seems 
to  me,  is  the  very  bottom  principle  of  protection. 

There  is  a  radical  difference  of  opinion  about  the  reve- 
nue laws.  On  the  one  side  are  the  men  who  have 
Studied  the  application  of  those  laws  to  our  industries 


7 


before  they  invested  their  capital  in  them,  and  with  n 
view  to  such  investment.  Tliese  men,  we  may  be  sure, 
have  carefirlly  considered  the  relations  existmg  in  the 
production  of  manufactured  articles  between  the  rates 
of  labor,  capital,  and  taxation  in  this  country  and  the 
other  countries  with  which  they  have  to  compete.  As 
practical  men,  engaged  in  the  business  of  developing 
and  building  up  American  manufactures,  their  opinion 
must  be  of  value  and  weight. 

On  the  other  side  are  the  men  known  as  free-traders 
and  tariff-for-revenue-only  advocates.  And  of  these 
men  I  may  say,  without  injustice,  that,  so  far  as  my 
experience  has  gone,  they  are  men  who  have  little  or 
no  capital  invested  in  manufactures,  who  neither  intend 
nor  expect  to  invest  any,  and  whose  interest  in  this  mat- 
ter is  therefore  to  be  sought  for  somewhere  else  than  in 
the  development  of  American  industries.  Some  of 
these  men  are  undoubtedly  honest  in  their  advocacy  of 
free  trade;  but  of  such  I  think  they  are  mistaken. 

Let  us  consider  for  a  moment  the  tariff-for-revenue- 
onlv  advocate,  and  see  if  we  can  dispose  of  him.  It  is 
claimed  by  this  advocate  that  $130,000,000  a  year  is  all 
the  revenue  required  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  that  this  amount  distributed  on  imported 
manufactured  articles  would  furnish  all  the  protection 
our  manufacturing  interests  need,  and  that  all  beyond 
that  is  monopoly. 

Now  I  do  not  know  the  exact  figures,  but  1  know  i 
am  within  the  sum  when  I  suppose,  for  the  purposes  of 
illustration,  that  there  are  invested  in  this  country  and 
in  England  $4,000,000,000  each  in  manufacturing  inter- 
ests, for  plant  and  working  capital.*  The  average  low- 
est annual  rate  of  interest  on  this  amount  in  the  different 
States  would  be  7  per  cent,  or  $280,000,000  a  year. 
The  rate  of  interest  on  the  same  amount  in  England 
would  be  3  per  cent,  or  $120,000,000.  Add  to  this  the 
$130,000,000  to  be  put  on  the  English  manufactures 
(though  somewhat  of  this  would  go  to  France  and  Ger- 
many—say $10,000,000  of  it)  for  revenue,  and  the  ac- 
count stands  thus: 

American  manufactures,  interest  on  $4,000,000,000. .  •  -$280,000,000 

English  manufactures,  interest  on  $4,000,000,000   120,000,000 

Engish  manufactures,  tariff  for  revenue   120,000,000 

English  advantage  over  American  manufactures,  an- 

nually   $40,00J,uuu 

*  As  we  had  $3,000,000  in  1870,  when  the  census  of  1880  is  done 
it  will  certainly  show  more  than  the  sum  I  assume. 


8 


What  protection,  I  should  like  to  ask,  would  that 
taritf  for  revenue  only  be  for  American  manufacturing 
interests?  The  simple  amount  of  it  is  that  a  tariff  for 
revenue  only  is  nothing  but  free  trade  in  disguise.  It 
can  be  seen  at  once  that  the  American  working-man  is 
left  out  in  the  cold.  It  means,  practically,  to  throw 
open  the  whole  of  the  ports  and  business  of  the  country 
to  the  free  competition  of  all  other  countries.  Hence- 
forth we  may  treat  the  tariff- for-re venue-only  advocate 
and  the  free-trader  as  working  vu'tually  for  the  same 
end,  so  far  as  our  manufacturing  interests  are  concerned. 

I  have  shown  you  the  advantage  possessed  by 'the  for- 
eign manufacturer  in  the  matter  of  interest,  and  how 
that  advantage  alone  wipes  out  the  item  of  revenue 
tariff.  Now  let  us  look  at  another  point — the  vital 
point  of  this  whole  question — Labor. 

Suppose  three  different  branches  of  business  are 
started  simultaneously  in  this  country  and  in  England, 
—a' woollen  factory,  a  rolling-mill,  and  a  shipyard, — 
each  with  a  capacity  of  employing  1000  men.  The 
average  wages  of  these  skilled  workmen  in  either  of 
these  shops  liere  would  be  $2  a  day,  while  in  England 
it  would  be  $1.20.    The  account  would  stand  thus": 

Wages  1000  skilled  American  workmen,  one  week  $12,000 

Wages  1000  skilled  English  workmen,  one  week   7,200 

Difference  in  wages  in  favor  of  English  manufacturer,  per 

week   $4,800 

Wage  advantage  of  English  manufacturer,  per  year  $249,600 

Now  I  want  to  ask  any  practical  and  sensible  man 
how  long  the  American  factory  could  be  run  and  its 
men  be  kept  employed,  in  competition  witli  the  English 
factory,  unless  one  of  two  things  was  done:  1.  Unless 
the  wages  of  the  American  workmen  were  reduced  to 
correspond  with  the  wages  of  the  English  workmen ;  or, 
2.  Unless  by  a  duty  the  American  labor  was  protected 
against  the  balf-paid  labor  of  Europe,  so  as  to  enable  the 
American  employer  to  engage  in  the  competition. 

The  sooner  our  people  understand  this  tariff  question, 
that  is  not  merely  a  question  of  tariff  for  revenue,  but 
of  protection  for  American  labor  -employed  in  the  devel- 
opment of  our  industries  and  natural  resources,  the 
sooner  will  its  right  and  sound  economical  solution  be 
reached.  Is  it  not  plain  that  a  tariff  for  revenue  only 
would  close  nearly  every  workshop  in  our  land? 

What  would  be  the  effect  of  that?  Does  the  free- 
trader take  into  account  the  great  interests  that  are 


9 


bound  up  in  these  workshops?  Let  us  inquire  Into  this 
a  little  further,  and  see  if  tlie  free-trader  wants  to  give 
the  American  workingman  an  even  chance  to  earn  his 
present  wages.  .      ,  .  , 

It  must  not  he  forgotten  that  the  factory  m  which  the 
American  workman  is  employed,  that  the  tools  he 
handles,  and  the  capital  that  keeps  him  at  work,  all  pay 
taxes  for  the  support  of  the  city,  town,  and  county  gov- 
ernment, for  the  maintenance  of  the  schools  where  his 
children  are  educated,  and  for  the  support  of  the  poor. 
These  taxes  add  to  the  cost  of  the  manufactured  arti- 
'  cle.    But  the  tariff  for  revenue  only  would  allow  the 
products  to  be  poured  in  upon  us  of  foreign  factories, 
which  pay  nothing  for  the  support  of  American  insti- 
tutions. -,    1  ^ 
Now  wliat  I  want  the  free-trader  .to  do  is  to  be  honest 
in  this  matter.    It  is  certain,  as  I  have  said,  that^  to 
enable  our  manufacturers  to  compete  with  foreign 
manufacturers  under  a  tariff  for  revenue  only,  the  cost 
of  American  labor  must  be  reduced.  As  the  free-trader, 
of  course,  disclaims  the  intention  to  close  up  any  of  our 
wwkshops,  the  only  conclusion  left  hini  is  the  reduction 
of  the  wages  paid^to  our  labor.    And  so  I  want  him  to 
call  meetings  of  the  workingmen  all  over  the  country, 
and  tell  them  frankly  what  his  policy  means,  "Work- 
ingmen of  America,  you  are  now  occupying  a  position 
that  does  not  belong  to  your  class.  You  enjoy  too  many 
of  the  comforts  of  life.    You  provide  too  well  for  your 
family;  you  are  too  well  fed  and  clothed,  you  are  al- 
together too  well  off.    Men  of  your  class  in  other 
countries  do  not  fear  as  you  do.    We  cannot  compete 
with  the  manufacturers  of  these  other  countries,  where 
labor  is  downtrodden  and  half-paid  unless  you  will  be 
content  to  receive  the  same  half-pay  wages  and  come 
down  to  the  same  squalid  condition.    It  is  your  duty  to 
do  this.   Why?    So  that  we  can  adopt  a  policy  based 
on  the  beautiful  theory  but  practical  absurdity  of  free 
trade.    To  whose  good?    Oh,  to  the  good  of  foreign 
manufacturers  and  their  agents  and  commission  mer- 
chants in  this  country,  who  are  all  free-traders  to  a 
man." 

This  is  wdiat  the  free-trader  ought  in  honesty  to  say 
to  the  workingmen.  But  instead,  he  too  often  tries  to 
deceive  by  saying  that  a  dollar  in  the  old  country  will 
Imy  more  than  a  dollar  and  a  half  here.  Does  he  tell 
the  truth  in  that?  Do  not  the  bread  and  meat  go  from 
here  there,  and  are  they  not  cheaper  here  where  they 


10 


are  produced?  Yes;  and  more  than  that,  it  makes 
little  difference  to  the  foreign  workin^man  what  the 
prices  of  even  those  necessaries  are,  since  he  cannot 
afford  to  buy  meat  save  as  a  luxury  in  his  own  coun- 
try. What  can  he  buy  cheaper?  The  few  and  poor 
clothes  that  he  wears;  and  even  these  are  only  cheaper 
because  the  men  who  make  them  are  half  paid.  What 
he  can  buy  cheaper  he  is  mostly  unable  to  buy  at  all. 
It  takes  all  his  scanty  wages  to  get  food  for  himself  and 
family,  and  he  considers  himself  lucky  if  he  can  get 
that,  though  it  is  not  such  food  as  he  gets  here.. 

The  best  answ^er  to  the  talk  about  the  greater  pur- 
chasing capacity  of  the  dollar  in  Europe  is  to  go  to 
Castle  Garden  and  inspect  the  thousands  of  poor, 
honest  mechanics  that  land  there.  Look  them  over 
from  head  to  foot  and  you  will  see  w^hat  the  purchasing 
capacity  of  their  day's  wages  is;  then  look  at  them 
again,  after  they  have  been  here  a  few  years,  and  mark 
the  difference.  But  this  workingman  has  come  from 
that  very  condition  of  free  trade  which  this  country  is 
urged  to  adopt.  How  is  this?  If  free  trade  will  be  so 
2:ood  for  America  and  American  labor,  how  is  it  that  it 
has  proved  so  bad  for  European  labor?  If  it  has  proved 
bad  there,  why  should  it  prove  good  here?  And  why 
should  any  sane  man  fool  around  with  dynamite,  w^hen 
he  has  just  seen  an  explosion  from  handling  that 
dangerous  material? 

It  is  certain  that  free  trade  will  not  aid  the  ximerican 
manufacturer  and  w^orkingman.  But  the  free-trader 
declares  that  it  will  benefit  the  farmer.  On  the  farmer 
he  makes  his  strong  point.  He  tells  him  that  if  he 
could  buy  his  plough,  his  wagon,  his  clothing,  and  so  on, 
from  foreio-n  manufacturers,  and  exchange  for  them  the 
products  of  his  farm,  he  could  save  from  10  to  25  per 
cent.  It  tells  him  that  he  could  then  buy  for  $9  what 
lie  now  pays  $12  for.  But  it  does  not  tell  him  that  by 
this  policy  he  would  lose  his  home  market,  and  hence 
his  means  of  getting  even  the  $9.  It  does  not  tell  him 
that  of  all  the  agricultural  products  of  the  United 
States,  only  one  tenth  is  sent  to  foreign  markets;  and 
not  so  much  as  that  unless  a  short  crop  in  Europe 
creates  an  extra  demand.  Now,  let  the  farmer  draw  a 
line  and  put  on  one  side  the  farmer  and  all  who  are 
employed  to  produce  the  agricultural  crop.  Put  on  the 
other  side  the  vast  number  of  people  engaged  in  in- 
dustrial pursuits,  from  the  mine  to  the  factory,  and 
those  also  in  professional  and  business  pursuits.  Tlie 


11 


former  are  flie  agricultural  producers,  the  latter  are  the 
consumers,  who,  at  least,  use  six-tenths  of  this  whole 
crop,  allowing  three-tenths  for  the  farmers  themselves 
and  one-tenth  for  the  foreign  market. 

Reduce  the  wages  of  the  workingmen,  who  make  a 
majority  of  the  consumers,  and  you  at  once  reduce  the 
buying  capacity  of  all  the  rest;  for  the  landlord  must 
take  lower  rents  and  the  doctor  smaller  fees,  and  the 
merchant  must  either  sell  lower  or  less,  and  so  oh. 
And  in  this  reduction  you  have  also  reduced  the  capa- 
city of  the  whole  community  of  consumers  to  buy  from 
the  farmer.  He  must  either  lower  his  price  and  lose  his 
profits,  or  see  his  grain  rot  on  his  hands.  A  splendid 
benefit  free  trade  would  be  to  him,  wouldn't  it?— de- 
stroying the  market  which  consumes  nine-tenths  of  his 
products,  in  order  that  he  may  buy  cheap  goods 
in  the  market  that  consumes  one-tenth  of  his  products, 
and  will  only  take  that  at  an  almost  profitless  price,  or 
when  the  home  crop  in  Europe  is  short. 

When  the  farmer  investigates  this  subject  he  will  see 
how  false  is  the  declaration  that  free  trade  would 
benefit  him.  ^ 

Tii8  wonderful  growth  and  prosperity  of  the  Vyest 
have  been  sounded  all  over  the  world.  But  the  time 
was  when  the  West  had  all  the  great  natural  wealth 
which  it  has  to-day,  and  was  burning  its  corn  for  fuel 
because  there  was, no  market  for  it.  What  made  for  the 
great  West  the  market  that  has  brought  it  wealth  and 
prosperity?  Was  it  not  the  policy  that  developed  the 
mines  of  the  North  and  West,  that  built  up  factories 
and  workshops,  that  brought  hundreds  of  t)iousands  of 
workingmen  to  fill  them?  That  was  what  created  the 
home  market.  And  under  that  policy  the  North  and 
West  have  prospered.  Reduce  the  purchasing  capacity 
of  the  workingmen,  manufacturers,  and  mechanics  of 
the  North  and  West,  and  you  destroy  their  prosperity 
to  that  extent. 

Again,  if  you  close  up  the  factories  by  this  free-trade 
or  tariff-for-revenue  policy,  what  are  you  going  to  do 
with  the  workingmen?  Nothing  would  be  left  for 
them  but  to  turn  to  the  government  lands.  Over-pro 
duction  must  follow,  and  over-production  in  this  line 
would  be  as  fatal  to  the  farming  interests  as  over-pro- 
duction in  the  manufacturing  line  is  to  the  manufac- 
turers. And  more  so,  for  the  products  of  the  loom  and 
the  anvil  will  keep  for  a  better  market,  while  those  of 
the  farm  will  rot. 


13 


Again  we  must  ask,  then,  who  is  to  be  benefited  by 
our  adoption  of  free  trade?  Surely  some  one,  or  why 
this  constant  outcry? 

The  popuktion  of  Great  Britain  is  about  38,000,000. 
She  has  capital  invested  and  skilled  labor  euouo-h  to 
supply  the  wants  of  200,000,000;  that  is,  she  can^pro- 
duce  of  manufactured  goods  five  times  more  than  she 
can  use.  She  cannot  raise  her  own  bread  or  meat.  She 
is  using  all  her  powerful  influence  in  this  country,  in 
my  judgment,  to  establish  here  a  policv  bv  which  she 
can  send  the  surplus  products  of  her  workshops  to  us  in 
exchange  for  bread  and  meat  and  cotton.  To  do  that 
our  workshops  must  be  closed  up  and  our  skilled  labor 
sent  to  the  cotton  and  corn  fields.  .  That  is  the  consum- 
mation which  the  English  free-traders  are  moving 
heaven  and  earth  to  bring  about.  How  does  it  look  to 
have  a  foreign  people  sending  pamphlets  to  American 
farmers,  asking  them  to  support  only  candidates  who 
will  vote  in  Congress  for  free  trade— which  means  vote 
in  support  of  the  English  interests  against  our  own— 
and  it  cannot  be  denied  that  those  pamphlets  are  circu- 
lated: they  are  here  now  by  the  thousand. 

It  is  well  to  note,  in  this  connection,  what  argument 
certain  English  employers  used  recently  to  induce  strik- 
ing cotton  weavers  to  return  to  work  at  starvation 
wages.^  The  employers  told  them,  to  quote  from  the 
English  press,  that  they  could  not  pay  more  at  present 
because  they  had  to  put  their  goods  into  the  American 
market  at  the  lowest  price,  to  break  up  the  American 
manufacturers;  that  they  hoped  soon  to  accomplish 
that,  since  there  were  good  prospects  that  free  trade 
would  be  adopted  in  America,  and  if  it  was,  within  a 
year  they  would  be  able  to  pay  their  men  good  wages, 
and  promised  to  do  so. 

Ancl  on  those  conditions  the  men  went  to  work. 

I  give  this  because  it  is  so  often  said  to  be  a  specious 
plea  to  talk  about  England's  taking  any  direct  interest 
in  our  affairs  or  using  the  avenues  of  influence  at  her 
control  here.  The  fact  is,  that  England  is  making  her 
great  fight  for  tiiis  market.  Her  manufactories  are  too 
large,  while  ours  are  too  small.  If  she  could  onlv  in- 
duce us  to  adopt  the  policy  of  free  trade,  which  she 
adopted  only  when  she  had  developed  her  industries  to 
such  a  point,  and  brouglit  labor  and  capital  to  such 
cheapness  that  competition  by  other  nations  was  impos- 
sible on  ajree-trade  basis,  her  drooping  industries  would 
immediately  begiu  to  revive,'  since  she  has  the  advan- 


13 


taffes  to-day  of  cheap  capital  and  labor.  As  I  have 
shown,  the  labor  question  lies  at  the  bottom  of  our  dis- 
advantage in  an  equal  competition.  So  I  want  the  tree- 
trader  to  prove  to  the  American  workingmen  and  to  the 
American  people  why  it  is  that  we  should  do  what  could 
bnly  injure  ourselves  in  order  to  advance  the  mlerests  ot 
a  foreign  nation.  i    i  t 

As  for  me,  I  am  content  to  let  well  enough  alone,  i 
find  that  Mr.  Colquitt,  one  of  the  most  emment  ot  the 
Eno'lish  statisticians,  estimates  that  the  United  btates  is 
accumulatiniT  wealth  at  the  rate  of  at  least  $2,500,000  a 
day  or  in  round  numbers  $1,000,000,000  a  year  and 
that  all  the  indications  point  to  a  continuance  of  this 
increasingly  prosperous  condition.  We  are  novy  en3oy- 
ino-  a  s-eneral  prosperity  and  growth  in  material  wealth 
unparalleled  in  history.  Why  should  this  prosperity  be 
disturbed  and  broken  in  upon  by  a  crusade  in  the  inter- 
est of  free  trade— a  something,  by  the  way,  that  does 
not  actually  mean  free  trade  at  all  for  us  in  its  practical 
workings?  Why  should  we  now,  in  our  highly  pros- 
perous condition,  begin  to  experiment? 

But  when  you  get  the  free-trader  into  a  corner  he 
always  cries  out  monopoly.  It  is  claimed  by  the  advo- 
cates of  a  tariff  for  revenue  only— which  means  practi- 
cally free  trade— that  our  protective  tariff  is  a  monopoly 
in  the  interest  of  the  few,  and  works  to  the  detriment  of 
the  many;  or,  as  they  frequently  put  it,  a  tax  on  the 
many  for  the  benefit  of  the  few.  ^ 

I,  for  one,  wish  to  say  that  if  there  is  a  single  law 
which  can  be  construed  to  give  preference  or  benefit  to 
one  man  over  another,  or  protection  to  any  class  of  men 
that  is  not  extended  to  all,  including  even  foreign  capi- 
'  tal  invested  under  our  laws  and  subject  to  taxation  for 
the  support  of  our  government  and  protection  of  Ameri- 
can labor,  I  say,  wipe  it  out. 

Can  any  free-trader  point  out  a  single  line  m  any  rev- 
enue law  that  gives  anything  not  equally  free  to  all  our 
50  000,000  of  people?  Are  not  the  rivers,  the  forests 
and  mines  free  to  all?  Then  where  is  the  monopoly? 
You  might  as  well  say  that  the  corn-grower  of  Iowa  or 
Illinois,  or  the  cotton-grower  of  Mississippi,  is  a  mo- 
nopolist, as  to  call  the  manufacturer  or  shipbuilder  a 
monopolist. 

I  will  give  you,  now,  a  few  facts  to  show  the  progress 
we  have  made  under  the  abused  revenue  laws,  and  hope 
to  be  able  to  convince  any  fair-minded  man  that  they 
have  worked  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  country.  Ut 


14 


us  take,  first,  the  father  of  all  monopolies  (for  such  the 
free-tmder  calls  it),  the  iron  interest. 

What  has  niade  England  the  richest  nation  and  the 
largest  manufacturing  nation  in  the  world?  Her  re- 
sources in  iron  and  coal  and  the  use  she  has  made  of 
them.  She  has  neither  cotton  nor  breadstuffs  nor  the 
power  to  produce  them,  and  is  dependent  upon  us  for 
these  necessaries  of  life,  while  we  have  these  and  the 
coal  and  iron  in  boundless  abundance  besides. 

And  for  ourselves,  I  firmly  believe  that  were  it  not 
for  iron,  and  the  use  we  have  made  of  it,  you  could  not 
hold  this  immense  territory  known  as  the  United  States 
under  one  central  government.  Then  our  brethren  be- 
yond the  Rocky  Mountains  would  have  to  sail  round 
Cape  Horn  15,000  miles,  to  come  to  make  laws  for  the 
nation,  or  down  the  Pacific  Ocean,  crossing  the  Isthmus 
of  Panama,  again  reshipping  at  Aspinwall  to  New  York. 
All  of  our  patriotism,  love  of  country,  even  the  influ- 
ences of  the  Christian  religion,  could  not  control  this 
vast  territory  under  one  central  government.  Our  breth- 
ren would  say  we  cannot  suffer  this  great  inconvenience. 
We  must  have  a  government  of  our  own.  With  all  the 
great  natural  advantages  of  this  country,  if  this  resource 
of  iron  had  been  withheld,  would  we  not  be  apt  to  cry 
that  the  Great  Father  of  the  Universe  made  a  mistake 
in  not  giving  iron  to  develop  the  other  resources?  ^  And 
when  we  have  the  iron,  shall  we  now  leave  it  in  the 
mine  undeveloped,  and  depend  on  foreigners  to  supply 
a  material  of  so  vast  importance  to  us,  and  with  no 
other  reason  to  give,  only  that  we  refuse  to  degrade  and 
crush  labor? 

I  call  your  attention  now  to  a  few  figures  of  iron  pro- 
duotion : 


In  1870  we  took  from  the  mines—  Tons. 

Of  ore   3,655,215 

To  smelt  this  into  pig  required— 

Of  limestone   •  I'rnn'nnn 

Of  ponl    4,500,000 

Of  Xv;;:;;;:.v;.. v.   1.000,000 


Thus  making  of  transportation  more  than. . .  10,655,000 
In  the  next  ten  years  to  1880  these  figures  had  doubled. 
Thus,  in  1880  we  took  from  the  mines—  ^m^s 

Of  ore.   7,709,708 

To  smelt  this  into  pig  required— 


15 


Of  limestone 

Of  coal  

Of  coke  


3,169,149 

8,981,553 
2,277,555 


An  increase  of  98  per  cent,  making  of  transportation  a 
total  of  above  22,000,000  tons  of  transportation  fur- 
nished merely  to  change  the  ore  into  pig.  Have  the 
men  engaged  in  transportation  no  interest  in  this? 

Shall  we  leave  these  22,000,000  tons  of  ore,  coal,  and 
limestone  buried  in  our  own  soil  and  encourage  their 
development  in  a  foreign  land,  simply  because  labor 
is  cheaper,  and  consequently  productions  of  all  kinds 
cheaper?  Will  any  one  say  what  the  effect  would  be 
to  this  nation  of  drawing  each  year  from  our  financial 
resources  and  sending  it  abroad  to  purchase  our  annual 
supply?  Would  not  this  increase  the  cost  of  iron  in 
the  country  we  purchase  it  from? 

Shall  this  transportation,  shown  to  be  so  immense,  be 
done  in  this  country  or  in  a  foreign  one?  And  what 
would  be  the  loss  to  our  inland  carrying-trade  if  this 
vast  freightage  from  the  mine  to  the  furnace  were  shut 
off.  In  fact  the  whole  freight  w^ould  go  to  foreign 
ship  owners. 

Besides,  this  is  only  the  first  freightage;  made  into  pig 
and  into  various  forms  and  shapes,  it  is  then  distributed 
into  all  parts  of  the  land,  to  be  worked  up  into  all  forms 
for  use.  So  it  furnishes  transportation  again  and  again 
until  it  reaches  the  merchant's  counter.  Remember  this 
transportation  is  labor. 


These  7,709,708  tons  of  material,  which  was  worth 
but  30  cents  a  ton  in  the  mine,  w^as  increased  in  value 
to  $100,557,685,  when  it  had  merely  been  made  into  iron 
and  steel  billets  and  muck  bars. 

The  value  it  would  attain  when  worked  up  into  all 
the  conceivable  forms  for  use,  from  the  plough  to  the 
knife-blade,  from  the  axe  to  the  surgeon's  lancet,  and 
from  the  ship-plate  to  the  watch-spring,  cannot  be  esti- 
mated. But  what  has  been  applied  to  create  this  value? 
Labor,  nothing  but  labor. 

Now  will  the  free-trader  compute  for  us  the  value  of 
this  in  dollars  when  worked  into  all  the  shapes  we  use 
it  in;  the  number  of  men  in  all  the  mechanical  trades 
who  draw  their  support  in  this  country  from  working 
up  this  pig  into  its  various  forms  and  values?    Then  let 


VALUE  OP  IRON  INCREASED. 


16 


him  consider  the  families  dependent  upon  these  me- 
chanics and  laborers,  and  tell  us  what  is  to  become  of 
them  if  iron  and  its  products  are  purchased  abroad? 
The  principle  is  the  same  with  many  of  the  other  indus- 
tries. Nothino;  but  labor  has  increased  the  value  of  the 
iron,'  from  the^ore  up,  and  this  labor  is  cheaper  in  for- 
eio-n  countries;  so  that  if  ore  can  be  converted  into  iron 
at°less  cost,  so  can  all  other  things  that  are  to  be  made 
of  that  iron.  So  it  all  comes  back  to  the  bottom  ques- 
tion :  Will  you  degrade  American  labor  or  will  you  pro- 
tect it? 

I  wish  this  question  was  put  to  the  boys  of  our  public 
schools.  Some  of  our  statesmen  could  learn  wisdom 
from  their  fi2:ures. 

Every  workintrman  owes  it  to  himself,  to  his  family, 
and  his"  countryfto  take  up  this  question  and  figure  it 
out. 

The  -epplication  of  labor  to  our  natural  resources  is 
the  source  of  our  wealth  and  prosperity.  By  the  devel- 
opment of  these  resources,  and  the  providing  of  our 
people  at  home  with  the  manufactured  goods  they  need, 
how  manv  thousands  of  towns  and  cities  have  been 
built  up  from  the  swamp  where  the  scrub  oak  grew  to 
what  they  are  today?  To  the  extent  we  apply  this 
labor  we  get  rich;  when  we  cease  to  apply  it,  we  get 

^°To  dispose  of  the  charge  that  the  protective  tariS 
raises  and  keeps  up  prices,"and  to  show  that  in  fact  the 
competition  made  possible  bv  the  tariff  reduces  the 
cost,  I  will  give  some  figures  relating  to  ship-irou,  steel- 
rails',  and  the  locomotive. 

COST  OF  lEON,  1850  TO  1860. 

Fi^rures  taken  from  Xew  York  prices  show  that  the 
averafre  price  per  pound  of  ship  or  tank  iron  from  IboU 
to  1860  vears  when  we  had  a  low  tariff,  was: 

For  ship  or  tank  plate,  4  cents;  for  flange  iron,  5  cents; 
for  angle  iron,  3|  cents;  for  rivets,  5  cents;  average  of 
the  four  classes  of  iron,  4^  cents. 

INCREASE  IN  IRON  PRODUCTS. 

From  1870  to  1880,  years  of  a  high  tariff,  the  iron 
products  of  this  countrv  increased  about  100  per  cent 
In  those  years  it  would  be  supposed  that  the  increased 
demand  w^ould  create  an  increased  price;  yet,  thoug^ 
^vao-es  were  higher  by  20  per  cent  between  18^0  aua 


17 


1880  than  between  1850  and  1860,  the  price  of  iron  was 
reduced  under  our  high  tariff  by  25  per  cent.  This 
is  a  positive  proof  tliat  to  have  cheap  iron  we  must  de- 
pend not  upon  a  foreign  market,  but  upon  the  competi- 
tion, energy,  and  enterprise  of  our  own  people. 

As  proof  of  what  I  have  just  said,  allow  me  again  to 
refer  to  figures  taken  from  official  records,  which  show 
that  from  1870  to  1881  prices  were  as  follows:  Ship  or 
tank  plates,  2^  cents;  flange  iron,  4  cents;  angle  iron, 
2i  cents;  rivets,* 4^  cents;  average  of  the  four  classes  of 
iron,  3f  cents,  or  25  per  cent  less  than  in  1850  and  1860. 

THE  GREAT  STEEL-RAIL  MONOPOLY. 

The  following  shows  the  price,  in  sterling  and  in  dol- 
lars, free  on  board,  in  British  ports,  of  steel  rails,  from 
1863  to  1875,  per  ton  of  2240  pounds,  compiled  by  H. 
V.  Poor,  New  York: 


1863'.  18   9  $89.79 

1864  17  12  85.65 

1865  16    7  79.56 

1866  14  10  70.56 

1867  13  10  65.70 

1868  12  12  61.82 

1869  11    6  54.99 

Add  to  the  above  the  premium  on  gold. 

Net  tons  of  Bessemer  steel  rails  produced  in  the 
United  States  from  1867  to  1880,  inclusive:  1867  2550- 
1868,  7225;  1869,  9650;  1870,  34,000;  1871,  88,250-  1872' 
94,070;  1873,  129,015;  1874,  144,944;  1875,  290,863; 
1876,  412,461;  1877,  432,169;  1878,  550,398;  1879,  683  - 
964;  1880,  954,460. 

At  a  valuation  of  $65  per  ton  this  would  amount  to 
$245,961,235.  Ninety  per  cent  of  this  enormous  sum 
was  paid  to  American  labor. 

And  here  comes  in  the  significant  fact  that  before 
steel  rails  were  made  in  America  those  purchased  in 
England  for  American  use  were  costing  $80  per  ton, 
gold,  or  30  per  cent  more  than  they  are  sold  for  now  in 
America.  Who,  then,  had  the  monopoly?  No  one  then 
heard  about  this  great  monopoly.  When  we  were  send- 
ing the  gold  out  of  the  country ,^giving  employment  to 
foreign  labor  and  allowing  our  own  labor  to  go  idle, 
was  this  policy  in  the  interest  of  this  country  or  of 
England?    We  never  hear  of  monopoly  in  this  couij- 


1870  10   7  $50.37 

1871....... .11    6  54.99 

1872  13  18  67.54 

1873  16    9  80.05 

1874........ 13    2  68.75 

1875   9   2  44.28 


18 


try  until  we  begin  to  supply  our  own  wants  and  cease 
buyino-  in  England.  That  is  what  a  po hey  of  protec- 
tion has  done  for  us  in  regard  to  steel  rails. 

THE  LOCOMOTIVE. 

Now  I  want  to  call  your  attention  briefly  to  what  we 
have  done  in  buildingUe  locomotive.  .  T^^t  ^ill  sliow 
the  development  of  another  American  industry,  ^itty 
years  a^-o  we  imported  a  locomotive  engine  from  Eng- 
land as  a  sample.  I  made  an  examination  some  time 
smce  as  to  the  number  of  locomotives  now  m  the  Lmted 
States,  the  cost  of  their  construction  and  how  it  com- 
pares With  the  cost  of  construction  m  other  countries. 
The  number  of  locomotives  in  use  in  this  country  Jau- 
nuary  1  1879,  was  estimated  at  16,44d,  valued  at  $164,- 
450  000  The  number  of  cars  in  use,  not  including 
palace  cars,  was  estimated  low  at  498,000  which  would 
cost  at  least  $600,000,000,  making  the  value  of  locomo- 
^^ri  o.H  ..r«  tocrkher.  ^764.450,000.    Besides  as  much 


tives  and  cars  together,  $764,450,000.  Besides  as  much 
as  one-tenth  of  the  total  now  runnmg  must  have  been 
rebuilt  say  five  times  since  1830,  at  a  cost  of  |d8^,^^o,- 
OOrmaMng  a  grand  total  of  $1,146  675,000,  which  is 
more  than  England  has  invested  in  ships.  But  besides 
this  we  have  built  locomotives  for  export  to  all  parts 
of  the  world,  owing  to  the  recognized  superiority  ot 
the  American  locomotive.      ^   ,      ,  . 

The  Baldwin  Locomotive  Works  alone  sent  out  ol 
the  country  from  1870  to  1880  over  520  locomotives, 
152  of  them  to  English  colonies;  and  of  the  locomo- 
tives used  in  the  English  colonies  from  9d  to  98  per 
cent  were  built  in  the  United  States. 

Estimating  what  other  shops  have  done,  we  ha^e  ex- 
ported since  1870  $20,000,000  worth  of  locomotives  and 
double  that  amount  of  cars. 

We  have,  then,  succeeded  in  building  locomotive,  of 
such  quality  and  at  such  prices  that  we  have  takeii  Eng^ 
land-s  locomotive  business  away  from  her  in  o.n  n 
colonies.  Is  there  any  reason  why,  when  our  ship- 
building shall  be  equally  encouraged  and  ^ejelop^ed  b> 
extending  our  trade  and  making  a  demand  for  it,  ^^e 
should  not  build  ships  for  those  countries  which  have 
not  the  resources  to  build  them  for  themselves 

But  then  we  are  told  that  wliile  we  can  build  he  lo- 
comotive and  the  car  we  cannot  build  t^^^  ^hip  though 
that  is  built  out  of  the  same  material  and  from  the  same 
forest  and  mine,  and  though  the  labor  required  to  con- 
vert 100  tons  of  pig-iron  into  locomotives  is  much  greater 


19 


than  it  is  in  the  finished  ship  and  just  as  high  priced. 
But  we  had  a  policy  for  building  the  locomotive,  by 
finding  a  use  for  it,  and  you  see  the  result. 

THE  SHIP. 

Lastly,  let  us  consider  for  a  few  moments  the  ship.  I 
have  shown  vou  the  mighty  strides  we  have  made  in  the 
development  of  the  steel  rail  and  the  locomotive.  The 
vast  growth  of  our  industries  in  general  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  in  1870  the  total  value  of  manufactured  articles 
made  in  the  United  States  was  $4,232,325,442,  an 
amount  which  will  no  doubt  be  largely  increased  by 
the  census  figures  of  1880.  No  other  country  in  the 
world  has  developed  as  we  have  in  the  last  ten  years. 
We  have  protected  our  industries,  and  aided  in  the  de- 
velopment of  our  agricultural  resources  through  the 
building  of  railroads  and  opening  up  land  communica- 
tion to  market.  We  have  built  up  our  manufacturing 
interests  beyond  all  our  expectations,  and  by  so  doing 
have  given  a  valuable  and  profitable  home  market  to 
our  farmers.  This  wonderful  development  we  owe  to 
protection.  Had  it  not  been  for  this  protection,  at  the 
close  of  our  civil  war  our  factories  would  have  been  as 
scarce  on  the  land  as  our  ships  in  the  foreign  trade  were 
on  the  sea,  for  we  had  given  no  protection  to  the  ship. 
This  wise  policy  of  protecting  our  industries  kept  the 
factories  open,  and  when  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
men  who  went  to  the  war  returned  home  they  found 
employment  in  the  factories  and  workshops;^  but  when 
the  sailors  were  done  with  fighting,  they  found  no  ships 
to  employ  them.  And,  together  with  the  loss  of  ships, 
we  had  lost  the  American  hold  on  the  foreign  carrying 
trade.  . 

But  now  to  show  what  protection,  smce  that  time, 
has  done,  I  may  say  that  the  development  of  our  coast 
carrying  trade  has  exceeded,  under  protection,  even  our 
unparalleled  progress  in  manufacturing  industries. 
The  history  of  the  world  does  not  show  so  vast  a  de- 
velopment as  that  of  our  coasting  trade  in  the  last  ten 
years. 

Look  at  the  figures.  Counting  in  the  contracts  al- 
ready in  hand  that  cannot  be  completed  untd  1882,  in 
the  ten  yeai's  from  1872  wc  have  built  120  iron  screw 

*  It  was  a  spectacle  at  which  the  world  marvelled— the  peace- 
ful disbanding  of  a  million  men,  and  their  turning  back  from 
war  to  tbe  workshops  and  the  farms.  What  would  they  have 
done  had  not  protection  kept  them  work  tpturn  tP? 


20 


steamships,  of  a  total  tonnage  of  230,000  tons.  We 
have  also  built  25  wooden  screw  steamers,  of  27,563 
tons.  This  makes  a  total  steam  tonnage  built  for  our 
coasting  and  foreign  trade  of  nearly  260,000  tons,  230,- 
000  tons  of  it  iron  steamships;  while  in  1870  there  did 
not  exist  in  this  country  the  rolling-mills  and  shipyards 
required  to  construct  an  iron-ship  such  as  we  have  to- 
day. 

Keferring  for  comparison  to  the  ocean-going  steam 
tonnage  of  the  world  in  1860,  we  find  that  it  consisted 
of  338  steamers,  with  tonnage  of  431,000,  divided  as  fol- 
lows: 


Nation. 

No. 

Tonnage. 

156 

250.000 

52 

71,000 

130 

150,000 

338 

431,000 

Ocean-going  steam  tonnage  built  in  U.  S. 

145 

257,563 

What  a  grand  showing  this  is!  We  have  built  in  ten 
years  more  steam  ocean-going  tonnage  than  England 
jpossessed  in  1860,  though  she  began  to  build  the  iron 
ship  in  1840,  and  had  liberally  encouraged  the  establish- 
ment of  shipyards,  paying  millions  yearly  in  postal  con- 
tracts to  induce  the  investment  of  capital  in  the  foreign 
carrying  trade. 

More  than  that:  in  these  ten  years  we  have  built  four 
times  as  much  steam  tonnage  as  we  owned  in  1860, 
while  that  was  made  up  of  old  side-wheelers,  not  fit  for 
ocean  carrying;  and  have  built  considerably  more  than 
one-half  as  much  steam  tonnage  as  was  owned  by  the 
world  in  1860.  The  ships  are  first-class,  and  their  car- 
rying capacity  is  equal  to  1,287,815  tons  of  sail— the 
most  approved  estimates  based  on  experience  making 
one  ton  of  steam  equal  in  carrying  capacity  to  five  tons 
of  sail. 

France  and  Germany  made  no  increase  of  steam  ton- 
nage to  compare  with  ours,  though  they  had  all  the  ad- 
vantages of  buying  free  ships  of  England  [an  advantage 
which  the  free-ship  man  claims  would  have  done  so 
much  to  gain  for  us  a  foreign  carrying  trade],  while  we 
labored  under  all  the  disadvantages  of  starting  a  new 
business,  when  the  financial  condition  of  the  country 


21 


was  unsettled,  when  gold  was  at  a  premium,  and  when 
for  a  part  of  the  time  there  was  great  business  depres- 
sion and  distress. 

What  has  been  the  result,  and  what  is  the  advanced 
condition  of  the  iron-shipbuilding  interest  worth  to  us 
to-day?  Had  we  possessed  tliese  120  steamships  in  1861, 
we  could  have  thoroughly  blockaded  our  coast,  and 
have  brought  the  rebellion  to  a  close  within  a  year. 
Through  our  present  facilities  we  should  be  able  to  con- 
struct a  similar  fleet  in  much  less  time. 

Then,  again,  the  building  of  this  fleet  has  reduced 
the  freight  rates  in  the  coasting  trade  nearly  50  per  cent, 
since  1870,  and  our  coasting  fleet  is  superior  to  the 
steam  fleet  of  any  country  except  Engiand.  How  is 
this,  do  you  ask?  Why,  we  protected  the  coasting  trade, 
tlie  same  as  we  did  our  manufactures,  and  so  saved  it; 
and  the  result  is  that  the  country  has  a  better  fleet,  to 
meet  an  emergency  with,  than  it  ever  had  before.  What 
a  benelit  this  reduction  has  been  to  our  own  people,  and 
yet  it  has  been  produced  by  competition  among  our- 
selves! 

It  was  the  ship  engaged  in  the  foreign  trade  that  was 
left  unprotected ;  and  in  consequence  when  the  war  came 
chcmce  was  afforded  and  taken  to  wrest  the  foreign  car- 
rying business  from  us,  and  when  the  war  was  over  we 
had  none  left. 

What  we  have  done  with  the  iron  ship  sin:;e  1872.  in 
the  face  of  financial  discouragement,  is  sufticient  proof 
of  wh;it  we  can  do  to  regain  our  place  as  ocean  carriers, 
if  a  permanent  policy  and  a  wise  one  be  adopted  by  the 
nation.  It  is  no  small  thing  to  be  able  to  say  that  this 
country  is  to-day  the  second  iron-shipbuilding  country 
of  the  world— second,  only  to  England— and  that,  with- 
out reducing  the  cost  of  American  labor;  we  have  re- 
duced the  original  cost  of  the  iron  ship  to  within  12  per 
cent,  of  what  it  is  in  England,  and  can  build  a  ship  hav- 
ing no  superior  anywhere.  I  am  siflisfied  that  our  ten 
years'  record  in  iron  shipbuilding  is  such  a  record  as 
ought  to  stop  the  mouths  of  the  men  who  declare  that 
Americans  cannot  build  iron  ships,  and  must  depend 
upon  England  for  theni.  What  we  want  is  a  wise 
policy  to  enable  the  merchant  to  own  and  run  the  ship 
after  it  is  built,  and  then  we  shall  succeed. 

FUEE  SHIPS. 

Just  a  few  minutes  more,  in  which  to  dispose  of  the 
free  ship  ad  vocate.    He  «ays  first,  last,  and  all  the  time. 


3S 


tliat  we  cannot  own  snips  Decause' we  cannot  buy  them 
In  the  cheapest  market,  namely,  in  England.  He  will 
see  no  difficulty  but  that,  he  will  accept  no  remedy  tor 
our  depressed  foreign  carrying  trade  that  does  not  in- 
clude free  ships.  I  want  to  show  a  few  facts  as  to  the 
free-ship  cry.  ,       ,  . 

What  was  our  condition  in  1865,  when  this  cry  was 
first  raised  in  Congress?  No  ships  but  a  few  worn-out 
sailino-.ships  and  sidewheel  steamers.  No  chance  to 
compete  with  England's  iron  ships  by  building  wooden 
ones;  no  facilities  in  the  country  to  build  iron  ones;  the 
carrying  trade  already  in  possession  of  foreigners,  wuth 
their  cheap  capital,  cheap  labor,  and  low  taxation;  truiy 
a  poor  condition  1  ,       .      r      -ir  ^ 

''Give  us  free  ships!"  said  the  advocates  of  an  Eng- 
lish interest  to  an  American  Congress.  Well,  i  will 
show  you  that  if  Congress  had  bought  and  given  ships 
absolutely  free  to  these  very  advocates,  they  could  not 
then  have  run  them  under  the  American  flag.  And  tor 
these  reasons:  ,      ,         .       ^  „ 

Suppose  five  4000-ton  steamers  had  been  given  to  a 
company  of  free-ship  men  for  nothing  m  1865,  the 
value  of  the  ships  being  $5,000,000.  The  account  at 
the  end  of  a  year  would  stand  thus  between  him  and 
his  English  competitor: 

Taxation  of  American  Line  on  its  $5,000,000  of 

Total  taxation  and  running  expenses  ^^^^'^^^g  ^^^q 
Interes\Tn^5'!U;666Vapit;i  English  Line  at  4^^^^^^^ 

ner  cent        .••   ..»••••   tt 

Taxation,  iper  cent  on  net  earnings,  say  earn-  ^ 

ing  6  per  cent  •  o^Q  ^^n 

Wages  600  men  at  $4.35  per  day  • 

Total  running  expenses  English  Line  $^,"750 

Difference  in  favor  of  Englisli  Line   $86,350 

Here  is  an  advantage  of  ^^f^^SO  a  j^ear  jhen  the 
Americans  were  given  their  ships  "fj  ""'Ji^'^" 

MPffiunt  is  taken  of  nterest  on  capital;  neither  does 
thk  ake  into  account  tonnage  dues,  nor  t  'e.«P^e^al  ^var 
tnv  And  since  the  Americans  who  wanted  fiee  ships 
tor  sti^  they  did-could  not  expect  to  get  thorn  for 


S3 


nothlns,  llow  would  they  have  stood  in  the  competition 
when  they  had  turned  $7,000,000  of  greenbacks  in  o 
eold  (as  they  must  have  done  if  they  had  used  the 
privilege  of  eoing  into  a  foreign  market  for  then;  ships) 
to  buy  what  the  Englishman  or  Frenchman  or  German 
could  buy  for  $5,000,000;  and  when,  besides  this,  they 
had  pai/from  7  to  8  per  cent  for  their  capital.  Just 
look  at  it : 

Running  expenses  and  taxation  American  Line  $563,000 
Interest  on  $5,000,000  capital  at  7  per  cent. . . .  350,000 

Total  cost  of  American  Line.  ^^iH2n 

Total  cost  of  English  Line  ^4?M^ 

Difference  in  favor  of  English  Line  $436,250 

Now  an  American  company  of  capitalists  would  have 
been  very  likely  to  invest  in  English  cheap  ships  m 
1865,  and  subsequently  on  those  terms  of  competition, 

^  Aid^yef  the  free-ship  man  unblushingly  persists  in 
saying,  in  the  face  of  these  figures.  ^  Only  give  us 
free  ships  and  we'll  be  all  right.'    Will  we? 

Suppose,  again,  that  two  Enghsh  companies,  the 
Cunard  and  White  Star,  each  wanted  to  start  a  new  line 
of  five  steamships,  both  buying  from  the  same  place  at 
the  same  price,  and  all  conditions  being  equal  save 
those  of  interest  and  taxation,  the  White  Star  having  to 
accept  the  American  rates  in  these  two  points,  the  year  s 
account  would  stand  thus: 

Capital  White  Star  Line,  5  steamers  ^^'2^n'nnn 

Interest,  at  7  per  cent   Von  cm 

Taxation,  2i  per  cent.  - 

Total  White  Star  cost  $5,475,000 

Capital  Cunard  Line,  5  steamers  ^^'?22'nnn 

Interest,  at  3i  per  cent  ^.'V'";'"      ^ ^^'^^^ 

Taxes,  1  per  cent  on  8  per  cent  dividend  on 

capital  jj  ' 

Total  Cunard  cost  :^$5479|000 

Difference  in  favor  of  Cunard  Line  per  year.  $296,000 
Or  a  difference  of  6  per  cent  on  the  whole  capital.  I 
need  not  ask  you  which  line  would  be  likely  to  pay  and 
sustain  itself  under  such  conditions  of  competition. 


24 


How  much  capital  would  the  White  Star  Line  be  able 
to  raise  on  a  statement  of  these  facts?  "Which  stock 
would  sell  best  in  the  market?  Yet  the  question  of 
first  cost,  which  is  all  the  free-ship  advocate  finds  to 
talk  about,  does  not  enter  into  any  of  these  calculations 
I  have  made  at  all.  Suppose  the  White  Star  Line  had 
only  the  one  difficulty  to  encounter  of  a  10  per  cent 
ditference  in  original  cost,  that  might  be  gotten  over. 

Compare  the  ship  on  the  sea  to  the.  factory  on  the 
land.  Both  require  capital  for  the  plant  and  men  to 
operate  them.  Xow,  what'  business  man  does  not  know 
of  instances  where  two  men  are  engaged  in  the  same 
line  of  manufacture,  and  where  one  of  them  paid  from 
fifteen  to  twenty  per  cent  more  for  his  plant  than  the 
other?  But  has  any  business  man  ever  heard  of  a 
man's  closing  up  his  factory,  and  ceasing  competition 
merely  because  his  plant  cost  him  more,  all  other  things 
being  equal?  No,  it  is  not  the  first  cost  that  drives  a 
man  out  of-  the  business.  But  suppose  the  one  man's 
taxes  were  twenty  times  more,  the  wages  of  his  hands 
twentj^-five  to  forty  per  cent  higher,  than  those  of  the 
other — why,  he  would  fail,  though  you  gave  him  his 
plant  for  nothing.  What  man  could *^buy  a  cheap  Eng- 
lish factory,  and  run  it  on  the  American  principle  of 
high  taxes,  high  capital,  and  high  labor?  So,  in  ships, 
it  is  not  what  it  costs  to  get  the  ship  afloat,  but  what  it 
costs  to  keep  her  there,  under  American  rates  of  taxa- 
tion, interest,  and  labor,  that  prevents  us  from  owning 
ships  in  Competition  with  foreign  owners,  who  employ 
capital  under  no  such  disadvantages. 

It  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  this  free-ship  outcry  never 
came  from  our  American  merchants  who  want  to  own 
ships.  They  laughed  at  it  as  folly,  while  its  advocates 
were,  mostly  woufd-be  merchants  who  were  brokers  and 
commission  men,  and  wanted  to  run  English  ships  on 
commission. 

^  Let  our  government  simply  place  us  on  equal  condi- 
tions with  other  peoples,  so  that  our  capital  can  be  put 
into  competition  Avith  foreign  capital,  with  a  fair  pros- 
pect of  return,  and  I  guarantee  that  there  will  be  no 
trouble  about  first  cost.  As  a  proof  of  that,  we  have  no 
ditficulty,  as  I  have  shown,  in  raising  capital  to  be  put 
into  large  American-built  ocean  steamers  for  the  coast- 
ing trade,  where  it  will  be  subject  to  the  same  laws, 
rates,  and  taxation  as  the  other  capital  employed  in  that 
trade.  But  when  w^e  undertake  to  put  capital  into  the 
foreign  trade,  we  bring  it  into  competition  with  the 


25 


capital  of  ottier  peoples,  who  have  more  favorable  con- 
ditions of  interest,  taxation  and  labor,  and  there  we 
find  the  hunt  for  capital  a  vain  one.  The  only  way  to 
get  it  is  for  our  government  to  pursue  the  same  policy 
that  England  did  when  she  was  in  a  like  condition — en- 
courage capital  to  invest  by  opening  up  new  marl^iets 
through  the  establishment  of  mail  steamship  lines. 
Moreover,  we  urgently  need  these  new  markets,  and 
there  is  no  other  means  except  superior  facilities  of 
communication,  mail  and  passenger,  whereby  we  can 
obtain  them. 

DANGER  OF  DEPENDENCE. 

^  But  taking  it  on  another  ground— the  ground  of  na- 
tional independence  and  security. 

Is  it  on  any  conceivable  ground  a  safe  policy  for  us 
to^  become  dependent  upon  a  foreign  nation  for  our 
ships  ?  Consider  the  vast  and  constantly  increasing 
products  we  have  to  place  in  the  markets  of  the  world. 
We  have  by  many  millions  of  tons  more  surplus  heavy 
products  to  be  carried  long  distances  than  has  any  other 
nation.  We  exported  last  year  over  11,000,000  tons. 
At  the  same  rate  of  increase  during  the  next  ten  years 
as  during  the  last  ten,  in  1890  we  shall  export  over  50,- 
000,000  tons.  We  should  require  this  year  to  place 
ourselves  in  our  true  position  on  the  ocean,  an  outlay 
of  some  $75,000,000  to  buy  ships  with;  and  each  year, 
with  its  increased  trade,  would  add  to  this  large  sum. 
In  what  interest  can  the  man  be  working  who  advises 
us  to  buy  from  a  foreign  builder  all  these  ships  which 
we  now  need,  and  shall  need,  if  we  are  to  gain  the  place 
that  belongs  to  us  ?  How  can  any  American  propose, 
in  view  of  our  future,  to  make  us  constantly  dependent 
upon  outsiders  for  anything  which  we  have  the  means 
and  ability  to  supply  ourselves  with  ?  What  are  Ihe 
great  ocean  steamship  lines  but  the  continuation  of  the 
trunk  lines  in  transporting  our  products  to  market  ? 
Why  should  we  control  those  products  on  the  land,  and 
the  moment  we  get  them  to  the  seaboard  deliver  them 
over  to  foreigners  ?  By  that  method  we  pay  the  freight 
for  from  1000  to  2000  miles  to  our  own  people,  and  for 
from  3000  to  4500  miles  to  foreigners,  when  certainly 
the  greater  part  of  it  should  go  to  support  American 
enterprise  and  labor.  What  would  be  thought  of  a  pro- 
position to  place  our  trunk  lines  in  the  hands  of  Enalish 
companies,  and  have  them  run  under  the  control  of 
England's  government,  with  her  flag  hoisted  on  the 


26 


cars  ?  Yet  we  might  do  that  with  equally  as  much  tea- 
son  as  surrender  to  them  our  products  at  the  seaboard. 

I  hope  I  have  now  disposed  of  the  free-ship  man,  with 
his  forever  putting  forward  of  the  little  difficulty  of  first 
cost,  and  keeping  out  of  sight  the  great  difficulties  that 
keep  us  from  owning  ships  and  taking  the  position  that 
belongs  to  us  in  the  foreign  carrying  trade. 

The  free-ship  man  never  seems  to  see  that  if  the  $5,- 
000,000  worth  of  ships  are  built  at  home,  90  per  cent  of 
that  cost  is  labor,  and  all  goes  to  the  American  working- 
man  ;  while  by  his  method  of  saving  the  ten  per  cent  all 
that  immense  capital  would  be  sent  to  support  foreign 
workingmen  and  a  foreign  government,  and  our  natural 
resources  would  be  left  undeveloped. 

I  think  we  shall  be  able  to  find  a  remedy  better  than 
that.  What  we  want  is  an  American  policy— a  policy 
wisely  framed  in  our  own  national  interest,  not  in  any 
other  nation's  interest;  a  policy  that  will  remove  the 
unjust  law  that  compels  an  American  ship  in  the  foreign 
trade  to  carry  our  mails,  but  refuses  to  pay  it  a  reason- 
able compensation  therefor;  a  policy  that  will  make  the 
competition  equal  in  the  foreign  canying  trade,  and 
that  will  induce  capital  to  invest  in  that  trade;  a  policy 
that  will  protect  and  encourage  the  American  industry 
of  iron  shipbuilding  in  the  same  spirit  and  to  the  same 
extent  that  our  government  protects  and  encourages 
other  American  industries;  a  policy,  in  short,  non-par- 
tisan, non-sectional,  but  comprehensive,  statesmanlike, 
national.  Let  Congress  inaugurate  such  a  policy,  and 
the  day  will  not  be  distant  when  again  the  American 
flag  shall  be  seen  in  every  port,  when  American  pro- 
ducts shall  be  carried  to  every  land  in  American-built 
ships,  and  when  America  shall  once  more  be  rapidly 
advancing  to  the  position  of  the  first  great  commercial 
and  maritime  nation  of  the  w^orld. 

You  ask  me  now,  What  shall  we  do  ?  I  answer.  The 
American  mechanic,  manufacturer,  and  merchant,  the 
American  sailor  ask  no  protection  for  brains,  push,  or 
ino:enuity.  All  they  ask  is  an  equal  chance  in  the  com- 
petition. I  liave  shown  that  dear  capital,  well-paid 
labor,  and  high  taxes  cannot  compete  in  manufacturing 
or  shipowning  with  low  taxes,  cheap  labor,  and  cheap 
capital. 

Look  at  what  England  did.  With  her  iron  mtercst 
well  developed,  able  to  build  the  iron  ship  cheaper  than 
any  other  nation,  with  all  the  advantages  of  cheap 
labor,  cheap  capital,  and  low  taxation,  she  yet  gave  aid 


2? 

to  her  shipowners  to  encourage  ana  induce  them  to 
build  fast  mail  vessels  to  open  up  new  markets.  ^ Wliy, 
from  1840  to  1880  she  paid  over  $240,000,000  in  this 
way  to  build  up  her  shipping  interest.    France  has 
aided  her  shipowners  for  years,  and  only  this  year, 
findino-  it  impossible  to  own  a  great  merchant  marine 
and  buy  it  of  England,  passed  a  law  offering  a  bounty 
for  every  iron  steamship  built  in  France— this  encour- 
ao-ement  being  equal  to  $7,000,000  a  year,  including  the 
sS'uspaid  to  those  running  French-built  ships  under 
the  French  flag.    What  is  Germany  talking  of  doing  ? 
Prince  Bismarck,  in  a  recent  speech,  recognized  the 
wisdom  of  the  new  French  policy,  said  it  would ''create 
for  France  a  powerful  navy,  which  may  prove  of  effec- 
tive service  in  time  of  war,"  and  declared  that  the  "mer- 
chant service  is  the  handmaid  of  all  other  industries,  of 
ao-riculture  and  commerce.    On  the  day  when  the  freight 
t°ade  is  given  over  to  foreigners,"  he  therefore  con- 
cluded ''a  mortal  blow  will  be  dealt  to  all  the  indus- 
tries of  the  country.     These  enterprises  cannot  dis- 
pense with  government  aid,  and  this  has  always  been 
afforded  in  a  productive  manner,  as  soon  as  it  was  a 
question  of  paving  the  way  for  our  traffic  in  distant- 
markets.    England  has  given  the  example  of  using  mail 
steamers  as  the  pioneers  for  the  creation  or  expansion 
of  commercial  relations."    These  are  the  words  of  one 
of  the  keenest  statesmen  of  Europe,  and  tliey  are  true 
words.    We  need  ships  to  pave  the  way  to  traffic  in 
new  and  distant  markets,  and,  as  Prince  Bismarck  says, 
tliese  enterprises  cannot  dispense  with  a  government 
policy  of  protection  and  encouragement.    What  is  our 
government  doing  for  the  shipping  interest  ?  Nothing 
but  load  it  down  with  burdens  and  unjust  laws. 

I  have  studied  this  whole  subject  and  its  difficulties. 
I  have  heard  all  the  charges  of  monopoly;  but  I  have 
found  only  one  i^reat  monopoly,  and  that  is  the  monop- 
oly of  labor.  American  labor  has  a  monopoly  of  fair, 
livino-  wages.  It  is  true  we  are  free  to  import  this  labor 
from^any'part  of  the  world,  but  no  sooner  does  it  get 
over  here  than  it  joins  the  ranks  of  the  monopolists  and 
demands  as  high  wages  as  labor  here  before  it  receives. 
It  is  this  high-priced  labor  that  makes  the  cost  of  the 
ship,  as  of  our  manufactured  products,  greater  than  it 
is  in  Europe.  It  is  American  labor  that  we  protect  by 
our  protective  tariff.  And  I  say  this  is  right.  I  say 
that  we  must  continue  to  protect  American  labor.  But 
shall  we,  then,  leave  our  forests  and  mines  undeveloped 


28 


because  it  has  ever  been  and  is  the  policy  of  our  govern- 
ment to  furnish  labor  with  more  favorable  conditions 
than  it  knows  elsewhere  ?  Is  there  no  w^ay  to  build  up 
American  interests  other  than  to  crush  down  American 
labor?  I  will  leave  that  question  for  the  American  peo- 
ple to  answer.  It  is  a  pressing  question  that  must  be 
answered  soon,  in  regard  to  our  shipping  at  least.  And 
anybody  that,  with  the  cry  of  free  tracfe  or  any  other, 
declares  that  American  labor  must  be  thrown  into  sud- 
den competition  with  the  downtrodden  and  crushed 
labor  of  Europe,  will  very  soon  find  that  it  needs  our 
sympathy  rather  than  our  opposition.  It  will  fall  and 
be  ground  out  of  sight  beneath  the  iron  heel  of  that 
American  labor,  wiiose  elevation  and  advancement  is 
one  of  the  strong  pilhirs  on  w^hich  the  splendid  structure 
of  this  free  government  rests  secure. 


29 


ADDRESS  BEFORE  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  POST-OFFICES  AND  POST- 
ROADS. 


The  House  Committee  on  Post-Offices  and  Post- 
Roads  met  on  January  26th,  Chairman  Brigham  pre- 
siding, for  the  purpose  of  giving  audience  to  the  Sub- 
Committee  composed  of  Delegates  representing  the  Na- 
tional Tariff  Convention.* 

The  Hon.  H.  C.  Calkins  was  introduced,  and  ad- 
dressed the  Committee  briefly,  explaining  the  action  of 
the  New  York  and  Chicago  Conventions,  and  the  rea- 
sons for  the  appointment  of  a  Sub-Committee  to  appear 
before  the  Senate  Commerce  Committee  and  the  House 
Committee  on  Post-Offices  and  Post- Roads.  He  read 
the  resolution  on  the  decline  of  American  shipping 
passed  by  the  National  Convention,  and  suggested  the 
measures  thought  necessary  to  secure  its  revival.  Those 
measures^  he  said,  were  a  reduction  of  the  tax  on  the 
capital  stock  of  vessels  engaged  in  the  foreign  trade,  a 
removal  of  onerous  consul  fees,  alteration  in  the  laws 
regarding  the  shipment  of  crews,  and  extra  compensa- 
tion for  postal  service.  Mr.  Calkins  alluded  also  to  the 
action  of  the  New  York  Chamber  of  Commerce,  which 
went  further  than  the  Tariff  Convention  in  recommend- 
ing legislative  measures  of  reform,  but  advocated  only 
the  ground  taken  by  the  latter  body. 

At  the  conclusion  of  his  remarks  the  speaker  intro- 
duced Mr.  John  Roach,  who  addressed  the  Committee 
on  the  subject  of  the  shipping  interests  of  the  United 
States. 

*  The  members  of  the  sub-jcommittee  were  Messrs.  John  Roach, 
Elihu  Spicer,  Jr.,  and  H.  C.  Calkins,  of  New  York ;  F.  W.  Nicker- 
son,  of  Massachusetts:  C.  H.  Cramp,  of  Pennsylvania;  T.  J", 
^ause,  of  Delaware,  and  William  I^g^rs,  of  Maine. 


80 


MR.    ROACH'S  ADDRESS. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee  on  Post- 
Offices  and  Post-Roads : 

In  the  National  Industrial  and  Tariff  Convention, 
held  recently  in  New  York,  every  branch  of  industry 
was  represented.  Never  before  to  my  knowledge,  has 
such  a  variety  of  different  and  distinct  industries  been 
brought  together.  The  farmer,  the  banker,  the  miller, 
and  the  watch-maker  were  there.  When  the  various 
subjects  before  the  Convention  came  to  be  discussed, 
and  the  views  of  the  different  representatives  were  set 
forth,  it  was  shown  that  the  interests  of  all  these  indus- 
tries were  so  interwoven  that  you  could  not  injure  one 
American  industry  without  directly  or  indirectly  in- 
juring others.  And  conversely,  a  benefit  to  one  would 
be  a  benefit  to  all. 

A  recognition  of  this  plain  fact  shows  how  it  is  that  a 
rapid  and  complete  postal  service  is  of  importance  to 
every  productive  interest  of  the  country,  manufacturing 
and  agricultural.  This  service  has  grown  with  the 
demands  of  the  country.  Consider  how  we  began  with 
the  pack-horse  in  our  early  days,  and  how  we  have 
developed  from  the  mail-coach  and  the  post,  and  the 
canal-boat  to  the  lightning  express  and  the  steamboat. 
And  see  how  in  addition  to  these  means  business  has 
called  into  requisition  the  telegraph.  Wonderful  has 
been  the  extension  of  the  facilities  of  communication  all 
over  our  land  and  throughout  the  world.  Yet  commerce 
demands  still  more,  and  there  are  markets  which  our 
commerce  seeks  to  enter  and  needs  to  enter,  but  cannot 
because  there  the  means  of  rapid  and  regular  communi- 
cation have  not  yet  been  provided.  In  our  early  history, 
when  we  were  only  able  to  supply  our  own  wants,  the 
providing  of  postal  facilities  was  properly  confined  to 
our  own  territory.  But  now  that  we  have  increased 
our  products  till  we  have  a  vast  surplus  to  dispose  of, 
not  alone  agricultural  but  manufacturing  as  well,  we 
require  new  foreign  markets,  and  to  obtain  these  the 
demand  comes  home  to  you  for  increased  postal  com- 
munication. 

OUR  INCREASING  COMMERCE. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  our  vast  increase  in  all 
kinds  of  products,  including  manufactured  goods,  which 
was  disposed  of  in  foreign  markets  during  the  period 
from  1^369  to  1879.    In  1869  our  surpl>w  was  2,5u0,000 


31 


tons  and  in  1879,  it  was  11,000,000  tons,  or  an  increase  of 
nearly  500  per  cent.  Should  we  increase  m  the  same 
prS  1890  our  surplus  will  be  $55,000,000  tons 
We  now  pay  to  foreign  ships  for  carrying  this  product 
$100,000,000,  per  year,  and  in  1890  we  will  pay  ^4UU,- 
000  000.  This  increase  of  our  products,  and  its  won- 
derful development,  took  place  before  we  had  resumed 
specie  payment,  and  in  1873  we  had  a  financial  panic; 
rate  of  interest  was  higher,  and  the  credit  of  the  nation 
was  not  so  well  established.  The  prospect  for  the  devel- 
opment of  our  resources  during  the  next  ten  years  is 
better  than  during  the  last  ten  years.  We  can  produce 
cheaper:  we  are  building  more  railroads;  the  tide  ol 
immigration  is  rapidly  increasing ;  Europe  cannot  take 
more  of  our  products  than  she  now  takes,  and  our 
difficulty  will  be  to  find  new  markets  for  our  own 
production. 

TRADE  WITH  SOUTH  AMERICA. 

I  will  further  ask  your  attention  to  the  markets  of 
South  America,  and  our  present  trade  with  that  country. 
With  proper  facilities,  a  wonderful  opportunity  is 
offered  to  increase  our  trade  with  the  South  American 
countries. 


Exports  to— 


Mexico  

Central  America. 

Honduras  

West  Indies  

Colombia  

Venezuela  

Guiana  

Brazil.  

Uruguay  

Argentine  

Chili  

Peru  

Ecuador   


$6,751,000 
1,110,000 
290,000 

30,143,000 
5,535,000 
1,941,000 
1,400,000 
8,100,000 
1,000,000 
2,775,000 
2,000,000 
2,000,000 
750,000 


Imports 

PROM— 


$5,493,000 
2,252,000 
217,000 
78,532,000 
7,187,000 
5,576,000 
928,000 
51,970,000 
5,545,000 
6,000,000 
1,254,000 
500,000 
500,000 


Total 

TRADE, 


$12,244,000 
3,362,000 
507,000 
108,675,000 
12,722,000 
7,517,000 
2,328,000 
60,070,000 
6,545,000 
8,775,000 
3,254,000 
2,500,000 
1,250,000 


$63,795,000  $165,954,000 1  $229,749,000 


Balance  of  trade  against  us,  1880  $102,159,000 

With  the  exception  of  Mexico,  we  have  no  mail  com- 
munication direct  with  these  countries,  and  the  Mexican 


82 


Government  pays  to  keep  that  service  up.  I  observed 
recently  that  the  American  Minister  to  Brazil  was 
obliged  to  go  on  an  English  ship,  ma  Europe,  to  reach 
his  post — 3,500  miles  out  of  his  way.  How  humiliating  ! 
Every  dollar  of  this  enormous  trade  is  settled  for  by  ex- 
change on  London,  and  our  American  manufacturers 
and  producers  pay  the  discount,  which  would  more  than 
pay  for  the  establishment  of  rapid  mail  communication 
with  each  country  mentioned. 

ENGLISH  COMMERCIAL  POLICY. 

The  present  control  which  England  holds  on  the  ocean 
and  the  markets  of  the  world  has  been  the  work  of  forty 
years,  and  for  two  hundred  years  she  has  stood  ready  to 
make  any  sacrifice  that  she  might  be  "mistress  of  the 
sea."  The  American  nation  was  the  orly  one  she  ever 
feared  in  fair  competition.  We  were  rapidly  gaining  on 
her  up  to  1812,  when  her  jealousy  of  our  mighty  progress 
on  the  sea  was  the  cause  of  a  war  in  which  she  gained 
nothing,  but  by  which  we  established  the  rights  claimed 
by  us.  There  is  not  an  instance  where  any  nation  has 
ever  made  such  progress  as  we  made  between  1814  and 
1840.  In  1827,  thirteen  years  after  the  war,  our  tonnage 
in  the  foreign  trade  increased  over  300  per  cent.,,  while 
England,  in  the  same  time,  increased  only  about  50  per 
cent. ;  and  no  better  illustration  of  England's  alarm  can 
be  given  than  to  quote  the  following  editorial  from  the 
London  Times  of  May,  1827  : 

*•  It  is  not  our  habit  to  sound  the  tocsin  on  light  occa- 
sions, but  we  conceive  it- to  be  impossible  to  view  the 
existing  state  of  things  in  this  country  without  more 
than  apprehension  and  alarm.  Twelve  years  of  peace, 
and  what  is  the  situation  of  Great  Britain  ?  The  ship- 
ping interest,  the  cradle  of  our  navy,  is  half  ruined.  Our 
commercial  monopoly  exists  no  longer  ;  and  thousands 
of  our  manufacturers  are  starving  or  seeking  redemption 
in  distant  lands.  We  have  closed  the  Western  Indies 
against  America  from  feelings  of  commercial  rivalry. 
Its  active  seamen  have  already  engrossed  an  important 
branch  of  our  carrying  trade  to  the  East  Indies.  Her 
starred  flag  is  now  conspicuous  on  every  sea,  and  wil  1 
soon  defy  our  thunder." 

Things  went  from  bad  to  worse  in  England.  While 
ship -building  was  carried  on  byus^with  ceaseless  activity 
it  decreased  in  England  from  1,719  ships  of  205,000  tons 
in  182G,  to  1,039,  of  103,031  tons  in  1831.  Our  traders 
were  now  in  every  sea  and  fast  monopolizLng  the  caiTying 


33 


trade.  From  1827  to  1840  we  kept  rapidly  gaining-  on 
her  as  caniers  on  the  ocean.  Our  ships  outsailed  those 
of  England,  and  in  1855  we  had  in  our  ships  tlie  prefer- 
ence of  cargo,  because  of  better  managed  and  faster 
ships.  By  purchasing  ships  from  us,  and  admitting  all 
material  free  of  duty,  England  tried  in  vain  to  keep  up 
with  us.  From  this  experience  she  found  that  she  must 
build  her  own  ships,  and  find  her  own  material  at  home. 
Her  iron  industry  was  better  developed  than  that  of  any 
other  nation,  and  she  commenced  the  building  of  iron 
ships.  In  1840  England  became  convinced  that  she 
could  not  successfully  compete  with  our  fast  clipper 
ships.  Something  had  to  be  done  to  secure  her  in  the 
control  of  the  foreign  markets,  and  to  maintain  her  posi- 
tion as  the  first  maritime  nation  of  the  world.  She  tried 
war,  and  it  failed  her.  Then  came  a  new  policy.  In 
1840  she  made  a  contract  with  the  Cunard  Steamship 
Co.  for  $413,000  per  year  ($16,000  per  round  trip)  as 
compensation  for  carrying  the  English  mails  to  America. 
In  1841  this  amount  was  increased  to  $550,000  per 
annum,  the  company  complaining  that  it  did  not  pay 
them,  and  based  their  complaint  upon  the  fierce  opposition 
of  the  American  clipper  ships.  In  1846  the  sum  was 
again  increased  to  $705,666,  which  was  equal  to  25  per 
cent,  per  annum  to  this  company  on  the  entire  capital 
invested.  The  shareholders  were  satisfied  with  10  per 
cent  on  their  investment,  and  the  additional  15  per  cent 
was  used  as  a  "fighting  fund  "  to  cut  rates  against  the 
American  clippers. 

In  1840,  also,  the  Oriental  Steamship  Co.  to  the  East 
Indies,  China,  and  Japan  was  established,  under  a  postal 
contract  for  a  monthly  service,  and  received  the  first 
year  $1,121,500,  which  sum  was  increased  in  1841  to 
$2,243,000  for  a  semi-monthly  service. 

In  1850  the  Royal  Mail  Steamship  Co.  established  a 
postal  service  to  the  West  Indies  and  Brazil  under  con- 
tract with  the  Government,  and  received  therefor  $1,350,- 
000  per  annum  for  ten  years.  The  same  year  the 
Pacific  Steam  Navigation  Co.  established  a  line  to  the 
west  coast  of  South  America,  under  a  contract  with  the 
Government,  receiving  for  a  monthly  service  $225,000 
per  annum.  Now,  add  to  this  the  $705,666  paid  to  the 
Cunard  Co.,  and  you  find  a  sum  total  of  $4,523,666 
per  annum  paid  for  postal  service  on  four  lines  to  foreign 
countries. 

In  addition  to  this  amount,  Brazil  and  other  gov- 
ernments paid  $1,500,000,  making  a  grand  total  of 


34 


16,023,000,  which  was  equal  to  25  per  cent,  on  the  entire 
capital  invested  by  Eng-laud  in  1860  in  steamships. 

THE  AMERICAN  CIVIL  WAR. 

Gentlemen,  this  brings  us  down  to  the  commencement 
of  our  civil  war  ^Ye  then  had  5.350,000  tons  of  ship- 
ping, worth  S255,000,000.  This  immense  wealth  was 
principally  created  out  of  the  profits  of  our  ships 
engaged  in  the  foreign  trade.  We  were  then  the  second 
carryiDg  nation  in  the  world,  and  rapidly  gaining  upon 
England.  Her  policy  of  subsidizing  her  steamships  for 
the°twenty  years  just  prior  to  our  war  prepared  her  to 
take  advantage  of  the  opporttmity  offered  by  the  with- 
drawal of  our  ships,  and  her  steam  tonnage  increased 
400  per  cent,  between  1S60  and  18»'^8. 

Our  ships  were  driven  from  the  ocean  in  the  following 
manner  :  We  had  no  navy  with  which  to  protect  us, 
and  our  merchant  marine  was  utilized  for  this  purpose. 
No  American  sailing  vessel  could  get  a  cargo  withoiit  a 
war  risk  on  insurance,  and  this  compelled  American 
ship-owners  to  tie  their  ships  to  the  docks.  The  vessels 
which  were  destroyed  by  the  "  Alabama  and  her  class, 
in  comparison  to  the  number  tied  to  the  docks  and  idle, 
was  very  small,  and  if  the  true  secret  of  those  Con- 
federate cruisers  and  the  work  which  they  were  intended 
to  accomplish  were  known.  I  a.m  sure  it  would  be  shown 
that  no  aid  to  the  Confederacy  was  expected;  only  the 
destruction  of  our  shipping  was  sought.  Our  commerce 
was  driven  from  the  sea.  Three  nations  wanted  it, 
England,  France,  and  Germany. 

SHIPS  FOR  THE  SHIP-BriLDERS. 

The  old  fact  comes  back  again.  The  nation  that  cannot 
build  ships  cannot  largely  own  them.  England  could 
build  ships.  France  and  Germany  could  not.  England 
gained  seven-eighths  of  what  we  lost.  France  and  Ger- 
many gained  the  other  one- eighth  between  them,  and 
to  enable  them  to  gam  this,  England  had  to  build  the 
ships,  and  after  1860  the  North  Atlantic  and  South 
American  trade  was  as  much  protected  to  England  as 
was  our  coasting  trade.  Additional  lines  of  steamers 
began  to  be  required,  and  the  English  people  began  to 
cry  out,  ''If  subsidies  are  to  be  given,  let  all  English 
capital  have  a  fair  chance  in  open  competition."'  This 
competition  was  reduced  to  English  capital,  subject  to 
the  same  rates  of  interest,  taxation,  and  running  ex- 


35 


penses,  she  having  the  advantage  of  all  other  nations 
in  these  items,  but  when  she  got  the  control  of  the  busi- 
ness, and  no  other  nation  could  compete,  then  came  the 
reduction  on  account  of  mail  contracts. 

ENGLAND  STILL  SUBSIDIZING. 

According  to  the  official  reports  of  the  Post  Office  De- 
partment of  Great  Britain  for  the  fiscal  year  ending 
March.31,  1880,  England  paid  for  ocean  postal  service  to 
foreign  countries  $3,708,618. 

The  South  American  Governments  were  always  ready 
to  meet  England  or  any  other  country  half  way  in  the 
expense  of  mail  service  to  the  different  countries,  and 
in  1880  Brazil  alone  paid  to  English  ship-owners  for 
mail  service  the  sum  of  $950,000  out  of  $1,850,(^00  ap- 
propriated for  foreign  mail  service.  Now  it  is  safe  to 
say  that  the  other  South  American  countries  togethcL- 
with  the  United  States  paid  an  additional  sum  of  at 
least  $1,000,000  during  the  same  year,  and  we  have  the 
enormous  sum  of  $5,658,000  for  one  year  paid  to  Eng- 
lish ship-owners. 

Annually  this  is  nearly  6  per  cent  on  $100,000,000, 
which  would  pay  the  interest  in  this  country  on  sufficient 
capital  required  to  put  in  commission  two  hundrtd  4,000- 
ton  ships,  or  800,000  tons  of  steam  tonnage,  giving  em- 
ployment on  the  sea  permanently  to  23,500  men. 

England  builds  her  ships,  pays  less  for  capital,  pays 
less  for  wages  to  run  them,  less  taxation,  and  has  m.iny 
other  advantages. 


86 


THE  ACTION  OF  FRANCE  AND  GERMANY. 

The  following,  which  I  take  from  the  official  record  of 
1880,  shows  what  France  has  been  doing  during  the  last 
ten  years : 


P3  p 


r-2       .  <Q 


e3  00  c3  00    00  troo    -'t^  3  go    ^  \ 

Oi  ^  a 

a      a      T-^  C^l  1-t 


h4     O  . 


03  <y 
I- 

S  o 

o 
m 


Oi  00 


11 


o  o 

Si 

IS 

00 


37 


In  1880  the  entire  French  tonnage  consisted  of  3,247 
ships,  with  a  tonnage  of  931.152  tons,  according  to  the 
Bureau  Vintos,  and  was  valued  at  $57,359,220.  Of  this 
tonnage,  275  were  steamers,  valued  at  $83,5^1,900. 
Nearly  all  these  steamers  were  purchased  from  England 
and  entered  free  of  all  duty,  and  after  they  were  taken 
to  France  they  were  subsidized  as  against  the  subsidies 
of  England.  French  ship-owners  also  received  liberal 
mail  compensation  from  several  South  American  Gov- 
ernments which,  added  to  the  French  Government  sub- 
sidy, reaches  annually  more  than  $5,500,000  for  postal 
service  alone,  which  is  10  per  cent,  on  the  value  of  her 
entire  tonnage,  or  16  per  cent,  on  the  value  of  her  steam 
tonna^ge.  Yet  France  had  free  trade  in  ships  all  this 
time. 

\^f  the  tonnage  of  the  three  nations,  France,  Ger- 
many, and  England,  England  has  six  times  greater  ton- 
nage than  Germany,  and  seven  times  greater  than 
France,  The  steamship  lines  of  Germany  are  subsidized 
by  the  German  Government,  and  also  by  the  German 
railway  companies.  France  was  compelled  to  adopt 
this  same  course,  or  close  her  factories.  The  road  to 
markets  must  be  kept  open  by  means  of  rapid  mail 
steamers,  which  not  only  carry  the  mails  but  distribute 
the  manufactured  goods. 

It  is  all  nonsense  to  say  that  this  enormous  sum  of 
money  was  not  paid  for  postal  service  by  these  nations, 
for  without  postal  service  the  markets  could  not  be 
opened,  and  without  markets,  the  English,  French,  and 
German  factories  could  not  be  kept  open.  It  was  also  a 
guarantee  to  caf)ital,  to  secure  it  against  loss,  in  the  es- 
tablishment of  these  markets,  and  without  this  guaran- 
tee the  capital  could  not  have  been  found.- 

England,  with  cheaper  capital,  cheaper  labor,  and  less 
taxation  than  any  other  country  in  the  world,  and  with 
iron  ship-building  more  advanced  than  any  other  nation, 
paid  from  1837  to  1880,  $222,000,000,  for  mail  service 
on  the  ocean. 

THE  AMERICAN  POLICY. 

What  is  tbe  United  States  doing  for  her  ships  in  the 
foreign  trade  ?  I  will  for  a  moment  compare  the  dis- 
tinction which  the  United  States  makes  between  capital 
invested  in  ships  in  the  foreign  trade,  and  capital  inves- 
ted in  ships  engaged  in  the  coasting  trade.  The  ship 
engaged  in  the  coasting  trade,  should  its  service  be  re- 
quired for  the  transportati/^n  of  the  mails,  is  treated  th§ 


38 


same  as  railways,  stage-coaches,  or  inland  steamboats, 
and  paid  for  the  service  performed  ;  but  if  that  ship  be 
engaged  in  the  foreign  trade,  and  the  Government  de- 
sires to  send  a  mail  to  a  foreign  country,  the  owner  is 
obliged  to  take  the  mails,  and  carry  them  to  destination 
with  little  or  no  compensation  therefor. 

I  will  read  to  you  the  Statute  Law  upon  this  subject : 
XJ  S  Revised  Statutes,  Section  3970.— The 
master  of  any  vessel  of  the  United  States,  bound  from 
any  port  therein  to  any  foreign  port,  or  from  any  foreign 
73ort  to  any  port  in  the  United  States,  shall,  before 
clearance,  receive  on  board  and  securely  convey  all  such 
mails  as  the  Post-office  Department  or  any  diplomatic 
or  consular  agent  abroad,  shall  offer;  and^  he^  shall 
promptly  deliver  the  same,  at  the  port  of  destmation,  to 
the  proper  officer,  for  which  he  shall  receive  two  cents 
for  every  letter  so  delivered  ;  and  upon  the  entry  of 
every  such  vessel  returning 'from  any  foreign  port,  the 
master  thereof  shall  make  oath  that  he  has  promptly 
delivered  all  the  mail  placed  on  board  said  vessel  before 
clearance  from  the  United  States ;  and  if  he  fail  to 
make  such  oath,  the  vessel  shall  not  be  entitled  to  the 
privileges  of  a  vessel  of  the  United  States." 

To  ask  relief  from  this  unjust  law  is  the  means-  of 
raising  a  cry  against  the  ship-owner  of  "  Subsidy  beg- 
gar " 

The  following  table  will  show  you  how  this  law 
operates  against  the  American  ship  engaged  m  the 
foreign  trade  : 


Lines.  . 


No.  Miles 
Ships.  Traveled. 


Mail 
Pay. 


New  York  to  San  Francisco,  China, 
Japan,  Australia,  and  return  


Brazil    Line,   New   York   to  St. 


681,877 


$24,410. 


Thomas,  Para,  Pemambuco,  Bahia 


140,000 
128,960 


1,875 
2,444* 


anu  xviu  •  •   - 

Havana  Line,  New  York  to  Havana  6 


South  Side  Line,  New  York  to  San- 


43,472 


187,000 


2,600 


Total 


32 


1,181,309 


$31,405 


39 


Contrast  with  this  showing  the  following,  which  gives 
the  amount  paid  annually  to  five  lines  which  carry  the 
mails  in  the  coasting  trade  : 

^  Miles  Mail 

I^i^'ES-  Traveled.  Pay. 


-Oalveston  to  Brashear,  Texas   58,500  .  $50,000 

Cedar  Keys  to  Key  West,  Florida   48,880  18,000 

San  Francisco  to  Portland,  Oregon   69,680  25,000 

Portland  to  Sitka   16,020  34,800 

Portland  to  Astoria   54,880  14,903 


Total   247,960  $142,706 


Thus  the  account  stands  : 

Lines  in  foreign  trade  carry  mails  1,181,809  miles  for..   $31,405 

Lines  in  coasting  trade  carry  mails  247,960  miles  for   142,706 

Lines  in  foreign  trade  carry  more  miles  by  938,349  for  less 

.  pay  by  111,301 

Or,  counting  by  miles,  the  pay  for  carrying  foreign  mails  is  2]4 
cents  per  mile,  while  for  domestic  mails  it  is  57^^  ce^its'  per  mile. 
That  is  the  discrimination  we  make  against  capital  the  moment 
it  is  put  into  tho  foreign  trade.  The  Mexican  Government  alone 
pays  one  hundred  and  thirty-four  thousand  dollars  a  year  for  mail 
service  to  this  country,  or  nearly  as  much  as  we  pay  for  all  our 
foreign  mail  service. 

Allow  me  now  to  call  your  attention  for  a  moment  to 
other  grievances  which  the  American  ship-owner  has  to 
complain  of.  Take  the  report  of  the  Postmaster-General 
of  the  U.  S.  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1881,  and  turn 
to  page  46.  It  is  there  officially  announced  that  the 
Department  received  from  postages  collected  on  U.  S. 
mail  matter  sent  to  foreign  countries,  the  sumof  $1,560, - 
679.90,  and  on  page  40  in  the  same  report  the  Postmaster- 
General  says  that  the  entire  cost  for  transporting  the 
mails  to  foreign  countries  was  $239,141.21,  thus  leaving 
a  profit  to  the  Department  of  $1,321,548.69.  As  before 
stated,  the  law  requires  the  American  sMp^  sailing  to 
foreign  countries,  to  carry  the  mails  for  sea  postage^  or 
two  cents  per  letter,  which  means  every  time  a  ""oss  to 
the  ship. 

OUR  CONSULAR  SERVICE. 

Again,  last  year,  so  the  official  report  of  the  Depart- 
ment says,  the  Consuls  of  the  U.  S.  in  foreign  ports  col- 
lected from  the  few  ships  which  we  have  in  the  service, 
in  way  of  fees,  tonnage  dues,  certifications,  etc.,  the 
enormous  sum  of  $830,000.  The  United  States  appro- 
priated the  sum  of  $750,000  for  the  support  of  the  Con- 
sular service  abroad,  yet  these  consuls  turn  in  to  the 
Treasury  of  the  U.  S.  $830,000,  or  $80,C00  more  than 
the  appropriation  for  their  support,  and  the  Secretary  of 
State  announces  that  ' '  The  consular  service  abroad  is 


40 


self-sustaining."  He  does  not  state,  however,  that  it  is 
sustained  at  the  expense  of  the  limited  commerce  which 
we  have  with  foreign  countries. 

Now  I  ask  you  to  contrast  the  practice  of  the  English 
Government.  Last  year  the  English  Government  ap- 
propriated the  sum  of  $1,300,000  for  her  Consular  service, 
while  the  entire  sum  in  fees.  etc. ,  collected  from  English 
ships  was  only  8200,000.  The  English  foreign  trade  is 
four  times  greater  than  our  own,  yet  they  only  collect 
one  qr.arter  the  sum  from  her  shipping  that  we  did. 
What  does  this  show  ?  It  shows,  gentlemen,  that  the 
charges  upon  our  foreign  shipping  is  1,200  per  cent, 
higher  than  the  same  charges  upon  English  shipping. 


Amount  Tonnage  Dues  collected  1875  Sl>014,045  05 

ISTG   1,135,232  58 

1877   1,227,299  82 

18r8   I,a36,627  68 

1879   1.462,267  97 

1880   1,610,383  84 

1881   1,588,823  87 


Total  $9,374,680  81 

Expense  of  collecting  same   70,000  00 


Actual  profit  in  7  years    .'$9,304,680  81 


According  to  our  present  laws  for  the  measurement  of 
steam  vessels,  we  measure  the  whole  vessel,  including 
officers'  Oj^uarters.  engine  and  boiler  space,  and  coal 
bunkers,  and  charge  tonnage  fees  on  all;  while  all  other 
nations  measure  only  the  net  carrying  capacity  of  the 
ship.  This  makes  an  extra  charge  against  American 
ships  in  all  parts  of  the  Avorld  of  33*  per  cent,  tonnage 
dues  more  than  the  ships  of  any  other  nation. 

It  affects  the  American  ship  during  her  time  in  service 
in  the  following  manner  : 

While  loading  at  her  wharf,  33^  per  cent,  more  wharf- 
age. 

When  in  dry  dock  for  repairs,  33^  per  cent,  more  for 
dockage. 

When  going  through  the  Suez  Canal,  33-i^  per  cent, 
more  for  tonnage. 

While  laying  up  at  wharf  ,  and  not  in  service,  33*  per 
cent,  more  expenses. 

It  seems  that  the  American  .ship  in  foreign  trade  has 
been  loaded  down  with  all  kinds  of  imnecessary  burdens. 
Strange  to  say,  the  men  who  for  fifteen  years  have  been 
advocating slaps  as  Vic  only  TCinedij,  have  never  seen 
any  of  these  difficulties  ;  or,  if  they  did,  never  suggested 


41 


their  removal.  The  only  difficulty  they  had  ever  dis- 
covered has  been  that  of  first  cost,  and  that  I  have  shown 
is  the  least. 

The  American  people  are  known  the  world  over  as 
the  most  practical  people  on  earth,  and  who  solve  the 
most  difficult  problems,  yet  the  world  is  surprised  that 
we  do  not  restore  our  flag-  to  the  ocean  again,  for  it  only 
disappeared  during  our  civil  war.  We  have  had  two 
wars  with  the  most  powerful  nation  on  earth,  and  which 
was  a  power  on  the  sea.  She  meant  to  drive  us  there- 
from, but  she  did  not  succeed.  The  combined  govern- 
ments of  Europe  could  not  drive  us  from  the  sea  by 
means  of  war,  but  the  policy  of  England  during  our  own 
civil  war  did  for  her  what  her  guns  could  not  have 
done.  If  she  will  open-to  her  ledger  and  count  the  cost 
of  her  war  with  the  U.  S.  in  1812  she  will  find  millions 
of  money  charged  up,  together  with  the  loss  of  thou- 
sands of  lives,  and  nothing  to  her  credit  but  defeat  and 
loss.  But  a  new  policy,  combined  with  shrewd  diplo- 
macy and  the  outlay  of  a  few  millions  each  year  during  our 
war,  did  the  work  for  her  and  gained  for  her  a  position 
on  the  ocean  which  she  never  could  have  gained  by  war. 

OUR  FREE  SHIPS. 

England's  policy  noio  for  us  is  Free  Ships.  Many  of 
our  best  and  purest  public  men  believed  this  to  be  the 
best  remedy,  because  it  was  made  to  appear  so  plausible 
on  the  surface.  They  did  not  investigate  the  matter 
fully.  The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  Free  Ship  Bill  " 
which  has  made  its  appearance  every  year  during  the 
past  fifteen  years : 

' '  Be  it  enacted^  etc. ,  That  so  many  of  the  various 
provisions  of  title  48  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the 
United  States,  entitled  '  Regulation  of  Commerce  and 
Navigation,'  embraced  in  chapters  one  to  nine  of  said 
title,  and  from  section  4139  to  4305,  both  inclusive,  as 
either  prohibit  or  restrict  citizens  of  the  United  States 
from  purchasing  ships  built  in  other  countries,  to  be  used 
in  the  foreign  carrying  trade  of  the  United  States,  or 
which  impose  taxes,  burdens,  or  restrictions  on  such 
ships  when  owned  by  American  citizens,  which  are  not 
imposed  on  ships  built  in  the  United  States,  are  hereby 
repealed  ;  and  it  shall  be  lawful  hereafter  for  all  citizens 
of  the  United  States  to  buy  ships  built,  in  whole,  or  in 
part,  in  any  foreign  country,  and  have  them  registered  as 
ships  of  the  United  States,  and  when  so  registered  such 
ships  so  bought  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  rights,  etc. " 


42 


Now  the  truth  is,  gentlemen,  that  free  ships  would 
not  remove  the  diffiulties  ^Yhich  are  in  the  wa}^  of  our 
owning  ships  at  all.  The  difficulties  come  after  we  own 
the  ship  :  enormous  taxation,  cos^  of  labor  to  run  the 
ship  after  it  is  built,  h-gh  rate  of  interest  on  capital, 
are  some  of  the  difficulties  with  which  we  have  to  con- 
tend. English  ship  owners  have  immense  capital  in- 
vested, with  ships  in  position.  They  are  backed  by  a 
Government  the  policy  of  w^hich  enables  them  to 
build  ships,  and  they  know  that  that  Government  wnl 
stand  bv  them  in  competition  with  the  world,  and  to 
compete"  with  these  ships  without  the  support  of  our 
Government,  would  be  quite  as  foolish  as  to  raise  capi- 
tal to  attempt  competition  with  one  of  our  thoroughly 
organized  and  established  trunk  lines  of  railway,  by  the 
construction  of  a  parallel  line.  As  business  increases 
the  established  railway  will  put  on  additional  trains 
and  so  it  is  with  the  great  steamship  lines,  which,  backed 
by  the  strong  arm  of  a  Government,  w^ill  increase  their 
tonnao-e  leaving  little  chance  for  new  competition. 

FoiMustauce,  in  1865,  when  fhQ  free-sMi:)  cry  was  first 
raised  in  Congress  by  the  advocates  of  a  foreign  inter- 
est these  verv  advocates  could  not  have  owned  and  run 
ships  under  the  American  flag  if  the  ships  had  been 
given  to  them  for  nothing.     For  these  reasons  : 

Suppose  five  5000  ton  steamers  had  been  given  to 
them,  value  $5,000,000.  The  account  at  the  end  oi 
the  year  w^ould  stand  thus  : 

Taxation  American  line  on  S5,000,000  at  per  cent. ..  .  •  -Sl^jOQO 
Wages  600  men  for  five  ships  at  $-2  per  day . . .  ;   4db,uuu 

Taxation  and  wages  American  line  $563,000 

Taxation  English  line,  1  per  cent,  on  net  earnings,  ^ 

say  6  per  cent   o-q-^ 

Wages  600  men  at  $1.55  per  day   om'A^o 

Interest  on  $5,000,000  capital,  4  per  cent  

Total  English  line   476,750 

Or  a  saving  in  favor  of  English  line  of   $86,250 

Here  the  Americans  were  given  literally /rc6  sM'ps  and 
no  account  whatever  taken  of  interest  on  capital,  or 
tonnage  dues,  or  the  special  w^ar  tax  then  existing,  yet 
there  was  an  advantage  against  them  of  $SG,250  a  year. 
Suppose  then  they  had  been  obliged  to  turn  the  de- 
preciated greenbacks  into  gold,  which  was  then  at  a 
premium  of  from  30  to  50— say  $7,000,000  of  greenbacks 


43 


to  ^et  what  would  take  only  $5,000,000  of  gold  from  the 
English  or  French  corporation,  the  account  would  stand : 

American  line,  running  expenses  and  taxation  ^|?n'om 

Interest  on  $5,000,000  at  7  per  cent  6M,uw 

$913,000 

Total  cost  English  line,  including  capital,  taxation  and 

wages     !_  L_ 

Difference  in  favor  of  English  line  annually  $436,iJ50 

Besides  $2,000,000  premium  on  the  $7,000,000  green- 

^^Was  it  possible  that  this  advocate  represented  the 
American  merchant  ?  ^    ^  •  ^ 

American  capitalists  would  be  likely  to  start  m  free 
sJiips  on  these  terms  -of  competition,  wouldn't  they  ? 
What  must  we  think,  then,  of  the  honesty  of  the  cry, 
''Give  us  free  ships  and  we  shall  be  all  right  "  ? 

Suppose,  again,  two  English  companies  wanted  to 
start  a  new  line  of  five  steamships  each,  buymg  from 
the  same  builder  at  the  same  prices,  and  one  of  the 
lines  puts  its  ships  under  our  flag.  The  result  would  be 
that  in  the  items  of  interest  and  taxation  the  hne  run- 
ning under  our  flag  would  have  a  disadvantage  of 
$296,000  to  overcome  annually.  Could  it  raise  capital 
for  such  a  competition  ? 

In  all  this  not  a  word  has  been  said  about  first  cost, 
which  is  the  only  difficulty  the  free-ship  advocate  will 
ever  see.  He  reminds  me  of  the  man  who,  boasting  of 
his  powerful  sight,  said  he  could  see  ^fly  on  a  barn  door 
two  miles  off,  though  he  couldn't  see  the  door.  The 
free-sMjJ  advocate  can  always  see  the  fly  of  first  cost, 
but  never  sees  the  door  of  taxation,  wages  and  interest. 

Let  us  see,  for  a  moment,  how  this  item  of  first  cost 
compares  with  those  of  taxation,  interest  and  labor  : 

Suppose  five  steamers  in  England  costs  ^K'?5n'nm 

Five  steamers  in  United  States,  at  12  per  cent,  advance. .  .  5,600,000 
American  line,  7  per  cent,  interest  on  extra  $600,000,  $42,500  a  year, 
or  less  than  1  per  cent,  on  the  $5,000,000  capital.  If 
this  was  the  only  difficulty  he  had  to  contend  .with,  I 
would  trust  the  American  ship-owner  to  take  his  share 
of  the  carrying  trade. 

The  ship  on  the  sea  is  like  the  factory  on  the  land. 
What  American  capitalist  could  buy  a  cheap  English 
factory  and  run  it  on  the  American  scale  of  high  taxes, 
dear  capital,  and  dear  labor  ?  i  •  • 

-cThe  free-ship  advocate,  therefore,  is  not  working  m 
the  American  interest  when  he  forever  puts  forward  the 


little  difficulty  of  first  cost  and  keeps  out  of  sight  the 
great  difficulties  that  prevent  us  from  owning  ships  and 
doing  our  share  of  the  foreign  carrying  trade.  He  does 
not  see  that  if  the  $5,000,000  for  ships  are  spent  at 
home,  90  per  cent,  of  it  goes  to  home  labor  ;  while  by  his 
method  of  saving  12  per  cent,  all  that  capital  would  be 
pent  to  feed  foreign  workingmen  and  support  a  foreign 
Government,  leaving  our  working  men  "idle  and  our 
natural  resources  undeveloped. 

But  does  the  free-ship  advocate  say  he  has  recognized 
other  difficulties  besides  first  cost  ?  I  answer,  he  may 
have  recognized  them  in  his  speeches  ;  but  why  does  he 
always  bring  in  a  free-ship  bill,  and  never  bring  in  a  bill 
to  remove  the  real  difficulties  which  I  have  pointed  out  ? 
His  actions  are  all  one  way— and  that  way  is  towards 
England,  not  his  own  land. 

He  has  always  two  remedies,  free  ships  and  free  ma- 
terial. We  build  iron  ships  at  home,  as  cheap  as  any 
country  in  the  world,  except  England.  Should  this  free 
ship  bill  pass,  England  would  be  the  only  nation  which 
could  sell  us  the  ships  or  material.  Shall  we  depend 
upon  her,  our  great  rival,  to  furnish  us,  and  enter  into 
competitiom  with  her,  and  if  we  do,  how  can  we  expect 
to  do  as  well  even  as  France  or  Germany,  who  have  had 
for  thirty  years  the  same  privileges  ? 

FRENCH  BOUNTIES. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  Committee, 
let  me 'ask  your  attention  to  the  provisions  of  the  new 
French  law  granting  bounties  to  ships,  which  are  as 
follows; 

There  will  be  paid  for  all  steam  and  sailmg  vessels 
launched  after  passage  of  this  bill,  excepting  fishing 
vessels,  yachts  and  steamers  now  receiving  a  subsidy,  as 
follows : 

''Thirty  cents  per  ton  for  every  mile  run,  to  be  re- 
duced each  year  as  follows  : 

cents  per  ton  for  wooden  vessels. 
11^   "         "      "  composite  vessels. 
1  "  cent  "  iron  vessels. 

The  vessels  to  be  used  by  the  Government  in  case  of 
war ;  and  the  above  premium  to  be  increased  fifteen  per 
cent',  where  designs  are  submitted  to  and  approved  by 
the  Navy  Department. 

"  Where  materials  are  imported  for  the  construction 
of  vessels,  there  will  be  allowed  to  ship-buUders,  in  place 
of  the  duties  paid  upon  materials, 


45 


For  every  registered  ton  of  iron  or  steel. 

For  wooden  >  essels  of  over  200  tons  

For  composite  vessels  

For  wooden  vessels  under  200  tons  


$12  00 
.  4  00 
.  8  00 
.    2  00 


For  all  the  pumps,  machinery,  etc.,  required,  $2.40  for 
every  220  pounds.  All  vessels  transformed  to  increased 
tonnage  after  the  passage  of  this  bill  will  be  allowed  the 
same  premium  as  for  new  vessels  on  the  increased  ton- 
nage.'' 

To  give  yoa  a  practical  illustration  of  this  new  French 
bounty  law,  I  will  apply  it  to  a  3,000  ton  iron  ship.  The 
bounty  would  be: — 
On  building : 

Weight  of  iron  in  hull,  1,800  tons,  at  $12   $21,600 

Weight  of  machinery,  500  tons,  at  $24.43   12,615 


Then  there  is  allowed  thirty  cents  per  ton  for  every 
1,000  miles  run,  after  being  put  in  service,  for  first  year, 
diminishing  one  cent  per  mile  each  year  thereafter. 

Presuming  the  above  3,000  ton  steamer  makes  ten 
trips  from  Havre  to  New  York  per  annum,  or  60,000 
miles ;  this  gives  for  first  year's  service,  as  follows  : 

3,000  tons,  at  30  cents,  =  $900  x  60  =  $54,000 

And  second  year's  service   52,000 

This  will  expire  entirely  at  the  end  of  thirty  years. 

Adding  the  bounty  and  the  allowance  per  mile,  the 
law  would  grant  the  3,000  ton  ship  the  first  year  $89,015. 
The  French  Government  for  this  requires  in  return  the 
carrying  of  its  mails,  and  the  right  to  use  the  ships  in 
case  of  war,  taking  them  at  a  fair  valuation.  Though 
this  law  seems  an  expensive  one,  yet  it  furnishes  France 
with  a  cheap  navy,  and  the  best  it  ever  had. 

This  law  met  with  the  severest  criticism  from  the 
English  press  while  it  was  under  discussion  in  France, 
and  it  is  said  that  the  English  Ambassador  in  France 
wrote  home  to  know  if  it  did  not  conflict  with  the  treaty 
between  France  and  England.  And  now,  since  the  law 
could  not  be  defeated,  English  capital  is  going  over  to 
France  to  build  ships  there  Under  this  law  France,  in 
seven  years,  will  be  able  to  hold  the  same  control  over 
the  carrying  trade  of  South  America  and  the  Pacific  that 
England  does  on  the  North  Atlantic.  This  France  will 
be  doing  while  we  are  wasting  our  time  discussing  free 
ships  "  and  subsidy,  and  paying  nothing  for  carrying  the 
mails ;  and  the  result,  if  we  allow  that  to  be  done,  will 
be  that  we  will  be  left  with  our  coasting  trade,  and  with 


$34,215 


46 


nothing  else.  If  we  allow  the  present  chance  to  put 
American  ships  into  the  South  American  carrying  trade 
to  slip  away  from  us,  it  will  not  be  left  open  to  us  long. 

Suppose  that  this  law  brought  into  use  under  the 
French  flag  100  3,000  ton  ships.  To  keep  those  ships  in 
use  for  30  years  the  French  Government  would  pay,  on 
an  average,  for  30  years  about  $2,500,000,  per  year. 
Those  ships  would  employ  under  the  law  ten  thousand 
officers,  sailors,  and  engineers,  and  those  ships  would 
make  a  navy,  as  far  as  ships  are  concerned,  superior  to 
our  present  navy. 

France  understands  that  this  law  is  a  law  of  great 
economy  in  the  matter  of  building  up  her  navy,  and 
besides,  these  ships  carry  the  French  mails  to  all  parts 
of  the  world.  The  price  of  mail  service  deducted  from 
the  amount  paid  for  these  ships  reduces  the  sum  to  ^  a 
very  low  figure.  Besides  this,  the  ships  constructed  in 
France  make  an  expenditure  of  $50,000,000  of  which  90 
per  cent,  is  paid  out  for  labor  to  the  French  working- 
man  in  developing  the  industries  of  France.  Also,  it 
gives  employment  to  10,000  sailors  during  the  life  of  the 
ship,  and  the  ship^s  gross  earning  each  year  40  per  cent, 
of  the  original  cost,  mostly  to  be  spent  in  France.  Sam 
this  all  up,  and  you  will  find  that  it  is  sowing  seed  which 
will  produce  a  rich  harvest.  I  ask  you,  gentlemen,  how 
American  capital  can  be  found  to  compete  on  the  ocean, 
in  the  carrying  trade,  with  French  capital. 

IN  CONCLUSION. 

These  are  the  arguments  that  I  have  to  present  for 
the  consideration  of  this  committee,  and  T  hope  they 
will  be  carefully  considered.  We  have  all  the  material 
for  ship  building,  the  iron,  the  coal,  and  the  wood  ;  and 
we  have  skillful  workmen  and  suitable  machinery.  Will 
Congress  now  do  its  duty  ?  Will  it  enable  our  ship- 
owners to  compete  with  the  ship-owners  of  other  nations, 
and  thus  secure  us  in  the  possession  of  a  national  marine  ? 
There  can  be  but  one  answer  if  we  wi-h  to  preserve  our 
interest  in  the  sea.  But  what  ever  is  done  let  it  bo  done 
with  a  will,  and  in  no  half  hearted  and  doubtful  spirit. 


47 


•  EDilaiil's  Policy  wto  War  FaiM. 

THE  NEW  POLICY 

THAT  SECUKED  THE 

OCEAN  C ARRYINd  TRADE  TO  GREAT  BRITAIN. 


•  Protection  to  her  own  Steamship  Lines. 

 '<-0-^»-p'  

Assertions  of  Hon.  David  A.  Wells 
and  other  Opponents  of  a  Success- 
ful American  Marine  Refuted. 

 ^ •go  »  

Fads  aialist  Misrajresentatlons, 

 -♦^♦^♦^•^  

Mr.  David  A.  Wells  and  others,  opponents  of  a  success- 
ful American  marine,  denies  that  England  has  pursued 
and  is  pursuing-  a  policy  of  subsidy,  and  that  by  such  a 
policy  she  has  built  up  and  maintained  her  commercial 
supremacy.  Will  he  deny  that  her  policy  has  been  at 
all  times  to  control  the  ocean  carrying  trade?  Her 
statesmen  early  recognized  the  fact  that  her  very 
existence  as  a  great  nation  depended  upon  her  position 
on  the  sea.  Her  war  with  us  in  1812  was  nothing  but  a 
war  of  jeal  usy  against  us  as  her  dangerous  rival  in  the 
ocean  carrying  busmess.  When  peace  came  our  rivalry 
was  only  stronger  than  ever,  and  in  spite  of  every  means 
used  to  check  it,  our  growth  in  tonnage  engaged  in  the 
foreign  trade  increased  300  per  cent,  from  1814  to  1827, 
while  that  of  England  increased  only  about  50  per  cent. 

The  Englishmen  were  alarmed,  and  the  London  Times, 
in  an  editorial  of  May,  1827,  said  : 

"  It  is  not  our  habit  to  sound  the  tocsin  on  light  occa- 


48 


sions,  but  we  conceive  it  to  be  impossible  to  view  tbe 
existing  state  of  things  in  this -country  without  more 
than  apprehension  and  alarm.  Twelve  years  of  peace, 
and  what  is  the  situation  of  Great  Britain?  The  ship- 
ping interest,  the  cradle  of  our  Navy,  is  half  ruined. 
Our  commercial  monopoly  exists  no  longer ;  and  thou- 
sands of  our  manufacturers  are  starving  or  seeking 
redemption  in  distant  lands.  We  have  closed  the 
Western  Indies  against  America  from  feelings  of  com- 
mercial rivalry.  Its  active  seamen  have  already 
engrossed  an  important  branch  of  our  carrying  trade  to 
the  East  Indies.  Her  starred  flag  is  now  conspicuous 
on  every  sea,  and  will  soon  defy  our  thunder." 

ENGLAND'S  POLICY  OF  SUBSIDY. 

From  1827  to  1840,  England's  carrying  trade  went  from 
bad  to  worse.  In  1837  she  made  a  mail  contract,  and 
began  that  policy  of  subsidy,  straight-out  subsidy,  which 
Mr.  Wells  flatly  denies.  Samuel  Cunard  offered,  in  1840, 
to  build  a  line  of  mail  steamships  for  the  North  Atlantic, 
and  his  offer  was  at  once  accepted.  In  1840  he  had  four 
1,200  ton  wooden  sidewheel  steamers,  228  feet  long  over 
all,  34  feet  beam,  28  feet  deep-paddle-wheels,  and  beam 
engines.  The  names  of  the  four  ships  were  Columbia, 
Britannia,  Acadia,  and  Caledonia.  Their  speed  was  nine 
knots  in  favorable  circumstances.  It  would  not  cost  to 
build  them  more  than  $200,000  each,  making  a  total 
cost  of  $800,000  on  these  vessels ;  yet  Mr.  Cunard  got 
his  contract  of  $413,000  the  first  year,  and  this  was 
increased  to  $550,000  the  next  year,  or  70  per  cent,  per 
annum  on  the  whole  cost  of  the  ships. 

This  was  a  subsidy,  pure  and  simple,  given  to  Mr. 
Cunard  to  enable  him  to  establish  and  mamtain  his  Ime, 
and  increased  that  he  might  ran  his  line  not  only  with- 
out loss  but  at  a  profit.  Without  it,  does  any  one  be- 
lieve the  line  would  have  ever  been  started.  This 
liberal  subsidy  was  increased  to  $705,006  in  1846,  when 
two  more  ships  were  put  on,  and  still  remaining  at  70 
per  cent,  on  the  whole  capital  invested.  This  subsidy 
was  continued  fifteen  years,  and  when  our  Government 
withdrew  its  support  from  the  Collins  line  the  English 
Government  continued  its  support  to  the  Cunard.  We 
also,  in  the  ten  years  from  1860  to  1870,  actually  paid 
$3,750,000  to  the  English  line  in  addition  to  the  subsidy 
it  received  at  home. 


49 


WHAT  ENGLAND  HAS  PAID  FOR  SUBSIDY. 

The  year  of  1840  was  the  year  of  England's  greatest 
alarm  about  her  position  on  the  sea,  for  she  saw  her 
power  there  passing  away.  That  year  she  gave  to  the 
Oriental  Steamship  Company  a  contract  for  a  monthly 
service  to  China  and  Japan  for  $1,121,500,  and  increased 
this  in  the  next  year  to  $2,248,000  for  a  semi-monthly 
service.  The  capital  stock  of  the  company  at  that  time 
was  only  $7,000,000,  and  their  contract  was  30  per  cent, 
on  that.  Other  great  lines  were  subsequently  established 
by  the  same  means— the  Royal  Mail  Steamship  Company, 
to  the  West  Indies  and  Brazil,  and  the  Pacific  Steam 
Navigation  Company,  to  the  west  coast  of  South  America 
— so  that  the  simple  fact  is  that  in  1850  England  was 
paying  mail  subsidies  amounting  annually  to  $4,523,6^16 
—  or  over  30  per  cent,  on  the  whole  capital  invested  in 
her  steamship  lines,  all  of  which  were  built  up  and 
es  ablished  by  subsidy,  held  out  as  an  inducement  to 
capital.  Since  1840,  England  has  paid  out  in  mail  sub- 
sidies over  $200,000,000,  and  received  almost  a  quarter 
as  much  more  from  this  and  other  nations,  and  as  a  re- 
ward is  the  great  ocean  carrying  nation  of  the  world. 

PROOF  OP  ENGLAND'S  SUBSIDIZING. 

The  falsity  of  the  assertions  that  England  never  paid 
subsidies  to  the  steamship  lines,  never  paid  anything 
but  a  fair  compensation  for  mail  service,  never  paid  any- 
thing to  aid  a  line  to  start,  to  continue  running,  or  to 
build  up  commerce,  is  proven  by  the  postal  contracts  of 
the  Government  with  such.  These  oflBcial  documents 
tell  indisputably  the  story.  The  one,  for  example,  with 
the  Peninsular  and  Oriental  Company  made  with  them 
in  1853  for  an  annual  subsidy  of  $2,500,000  was  to  expire 
January  1,  1867.  February  27,  1866,  a  new  contract  was 
made.  Whether  the  contract  was  made  for  any  other 
purpose  than  that  of  simply  carrying  the  mails  may  be 
judged  from,  the  fact  that  under  the  contract  the  com- 
pany agreed  to  submit  its  plans  to  the  Government  Com- 
missioners, and  to  construct  the  hatchways  and  other 
parts  of  its  ships  as  might  be  necessary  to  the  carrying 
and  firing  of  a  heavy  armament.  That  made  the  vessels 
immediately  available  for  naval  purposes  and  for  de- 
fense, and  they  were  at  the  Government's  disposal  in 
case  of  need,  and  were  used  in  the  Crimean  war  in  a  way 
that  opened  the  eyes  of  the  French  to  the  great  import- 


50 


ance  of  the  merchant  marine  manned  and  equipped  and 
at  the  Government's  disposal.      .  . 

With  the  same  company  a  new  contract  was  made  m 
1870  In  ' '  Articles  of  Agreement  made  this  6th  day  ot  . 
Anffust  1870,  between  the  Right  Hon.  Spencer  Compton 
Cavendish,  commonly  called  Marquis  of  Hartington,  her 
Maiestys  Postmaster-General,  and  the  Peninsular  and 
Oriental  Steam  Navigation  Company,"  I  find  that  tor 
carrviD^  the  mails  at  a  speed  not  exceedmg  ten  knots  an 
hour  '^he  Postmaster-General  doth  hereby  covenant 
that  there  shall  be  paid  to  the  company  (out  of  sucnaids 
or  supplies  as  may  from  time  to  time  be  provided  and 
appropriated  by  Parliament  for  that  purpose)  the  sum  of 
£450,000  ($2,250,000)  per  annum."  And  m  section  4b 
the  contract  of  1867  is  declared  annulled,  ';all  claims  of 
the  company  in  respect  to  the  suhsidij  therein  mentioned 
having  been  fully  satisfied  by  the  payment  of  a  subsidy 
after  the  rate  of  £500,000  ^5^^'^^?)  ^To^-  if 
a  report  of  the  Postmaster-General,  dated  July  20,  Ib/U, 
I  find  this  significant  passage :  "      ^  -,      -.-u  4-1,^ 

''By  the  terms  of  the  contract  concluded  with  the 
Peninsular  and  Oriental  Steam  Navigation  Company  op 
the  19th  of  November,  1867,  the  subsidy  to  be  paid  the 
fompany  issetdown  at  ^^00,000  ($2  000,000)  a  yea^^^ 
with  a  stipulation,  on  the  one  hand,  that  whenever  the 
annual  income  of  the  company  from  all  sources  does  not 
admit  of  the  payment  of  a  dividend  of  8  per  cent,  on  the 
caStal  employed  the  subsidy  shall  be  increased  by  so 
mufhis^^^^  of  £100,000  ($500,000)-as  IS  - 

required  to  make  up  such  a  dividend  ;  and,  on  the  othei, 
that  whenever  the  income  is  sufficient  to  allow  a  divi- 
dend exceeding  8  per  cent,  to  be  declared  the  company 
shall  pay  to  the  Postmaster-General  one-fourth  of  the 
excess." 

NOT  ONLY  SUBSIDY  BUT  DIVIDEND. 

Here  is  not  only  a  subsidy,  but  a  government  guarantee 
of  an  8  per  cent,  dividend  to  the  company's  stockholder. 
What  has  Mr.  Wells  to  say  to  this  ?  This  isn  t  ^  a  sub- 
sidv— Oh  no  !  This  is  merely  fair  pay  for  carrying  the 
mails.  This  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  maintenance  of 
the  company -Oh,  no  !  But  the  company  estimated  that 
"  the  receipts  from  the  passengers  and  cargo  must  tor  a 
long  lime  to  come,  be  greatly  belo^y  the  expendituie 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  the  service 
against  the  yet  more  highly  subsidized  French  line  ;  and 
the  Government  promptly  raised  the  annual  subsidy  back 


51 


to  £450,000  ($2,250,000).  What  has  Mr.  Wells  to  Say 
to  these  official  facts  ?  And  I  ask  him  how  the  Ameri- 
can Pacific  Mail  Line  could  compete  or  increase  its  fleet 
against  this  line,  which  was  guaranteed  8  per  cent,  by 
the  English  Government,  while  our  Government  com- 
pelled the  Pacific  Mail  to  carry  the  mail  against  its  will 
for  the  postage,  which  was  a  mere  nothing.  The  case 
of  the  English  Government's  contract  with  the  Royal 
Mail  Steam  Packet  Company  to  Brazil  and  the  West 
Indies  is  still  more  striking.  That  contract  jjuaranteed 
subsidies  sufficient  to  yield  8  per  cent,  dividend  on  a 
capital  of  £900,000  ($4,500,000).  An  extension  of  the 
period  of  the  contract  was  asked  for,  in  consequence  of 
serious  loss  to  the  company  by  hurricane,  in  order  to 
enable  it  to  get  on  its  legs  again.  According  to  Mr. 
Wells'  assertion  that  England  never  paid  a  dollar  to 
keep  an  English  line  alive,  this  request  ought  to  have 
been  rejected.  In  fact,  the  Government  granted  it. 
The  fact  was  frankly  admitted  by  the  company's  secre- 
tary in  1867  that  during  the  American  war  and  before 
the  competition  of  the  highly  subsidized  French  com- 
pany, this  company  earned  sufficient  to  yield  a  satis- 
factory dividend  to  its  shareholders,  but  the  case  has 
been  very  different  during  the  last  two  years. ' ' 

THE    SCUDAMORE     REPORT     ON     THE     NECESSITY  OF 
BSIDY. 

An  investigation,  ordered  by  the  English  Government, 
was  made  by  Mr.  Scudamore,  recognized  as  the  most 
competent  man  in  England  in  such  matters,  and  he 
reported,  among  other  things,  as  follows  : 

First — That  the  circumstances  and  position  of  the 
Royal  Mail  resemble  in  many  striking  particulars  those 
of  the  Peninsular  and  Oriental  Company,  and  that  both 
are  conducted  upon  sound  and  well  recognized  principles. 

Second  -  That  with  both  companies  a  subsidy  is  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  the  maintenance  of  the  service 
required  from  them,  and  that  in  the  case  of  both  com- 
panies their  ordinary  revenue  has  in  no  case  sufficed  to 
meet,  and  is  now  very  much  below,  the  expenses  of  the 
services  they  have  to  perform. 

J7^^>^?— That  the  Royal  Mail  Company  has  held  con- 
tracts for  the  conveyance  of  the  mails  for  periods  of  27 
and  18  years,  or  a  subsidized  existence  equivalent  to  45 
years.  That  it  could  have  borne  an  abatement  of 
£60,000  ($300,000)  from  its  postal  subsidies  in  1862  and 
yet  have  paid  a  dividend  of  more  than  8  percent.  That 


62 


in  1864  they  did  suffer  an  abatement  of  $800,000  but 
still  paid  over  19  per  cent.,  with  a  further  dividend  ot 
5  per  cent,  from  their  insurance  fund.  [Note  how  long- 
it  took  this  infant  company  to  get  its  growth  and  stand 
alone,  though  having  all  the  advantages  of  cheap  capital, 
cheap  labor,  and  taxation].  ^  ^qpp 
jTourth— That  this  prosperity  continued  until  l»bb, 
when  it  came  to  an  abrupt  close  ;  that  in  1867  the  com- 
pany only  iust  made  both  ends  meet,  and  that  the  saving 
of  $300  OOU  per  annum  to  the  English  Government  from 
1864  to  1867,  could  not  have  been  effected,  and  the 
rapidity  frequency  and  eflaciency  of  the  communication 
been  at  the  same  time  maintained,  if  the  American  war 
had  not  thrown  into  the  hands  of  the  company  a  new 
and  very  hicrative  trade.  [Thus  subsidy  and  our  war  did 
the  work  of  driving  us  from  the  sea.] 

jPifth—Thsit  the  first  question  is  whether  it  is  con- 
sidered necessary  that  the  communication  between 
England  and  the  West  Indies,  the  Spanish  Main,  Central 
and  South  America,  the  Brazils,  and  the  River  Plate 
should  be  as  frequent,  as  rapid,  and  as  secure  as  hereto- 
fore [As  an  argument  on  this  point  he  shows  that 
England's  trade  with  these  countries  bad  grown  from 
£39,850,911  in  1862  to  £52,495,496  in  1867.  And  he 
adds  •  ''I  assume  that  in  whatever  way  it  is  thought 
right  to  maintain  communication  with  those  countries 
the  service  will  be  direct,  and  not,  as  it  was  at  one  time 
proposed  to  be,  by  way  of  New  York. ^  I  am  led  to  as- 
sume the  abandonment  of  the  proposition  for  a  service 
via  New  York  by  a  perusal  of  the  memorials  w;hich  the 
department  received  in  1862  and  1863  agamst  the 
adoption  of  that  route  from  the  representatives  ,  of  the 
entire  mercantile  community  of  the  kingdom.  The 
memorialists  all  took  the  same  ground,  that  the  trans- 
mission of  the  mails  via  a  foreign  port,  when  they  could 
be  sent  direct,  was  objectionable  m  principle,  j 

Sixth— That  the  withdrawal  of  the  subsidy  from  the 
Royal  Mail  Company,  if  it  did  not  altogether  breaK  up 
the  company,  must  entirely  alter  the  character  of  their 
operations  and  lead  almost  immediately  to  a  deteriomtion 
of  the  quality  of  their  fleet ;  that  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  during  the  American  war  the  Koyal  Mail  Company 
derived  a  special  advantage  from  their  position  as  con- 
tractors with  the  British  Government,  and  it  is  a  sound 
proposition  that  the  subsidy  for  such  services  as  theirs 
should  be  such  as,  taken  together  with  the  returns  Iron 
ordinary  traffic,  will  yield  a  moderate  dividend. 


53 


This  report  was  accepted,  and  the  contract  extended 
as  asked.  Now,  I  ask  Mr.  Wells  what  would  have  been 
the  result  if  it  had  not  been  extended  ?  And  I  would 
like  to  have  him  say  once  more  that  England  never  paid 
a  subsidy,  nor  paid  money  for  any  purpose  aside  from 
simply  securing  the  carriage  of  her  mails;  where  do 
these  official  contracts  and  reports  place  the  "historic 
lie  ?  "  And  I  would  like  to  have  those  who  are  content 
to  have  our  mails  go  to  Brazil  via  England  ponder 
on  the  meaning  of  those  remonstrances  of  the  whole 
mercantile  community  of  England  when  it  was  pro- 
posed to  send  a  mail  line  via  this  country.  The  English 
merchants  are  not  so  generous  as  Mr.  Wells  and  the 
Evening  Post,  to  look  out  for  foreigners  first  and  for 
their  own  interests  last. 

MR.  wells'  construction  OP  SUBSIDY. 

I  will  have  no  quibble  with  Mr.  Wells  about  the  word 
'*  subsidy."  He  says  England  paid  mail  compensa- 
tion. "  So  she  did,  and,  as  I  have  proved  conclusively, 
paid  sufficient  compensation  to  insure  the  establishment 
and  maintenance  of  that  first-class,  rapid,  frequent,  and 
efficient  communication,  both  mail  and  passenger  and 
freight,  which  is  the  pioneer  and  life  of  commerce,  and 
even  went  so  far  as  to  guarantee  to  capital  a  profit. 
Call  it  subsidy  or  what  you  will,  that  is  more  than  I  have 
ever  asked  or  prosposed.  I  have  advocated  and  do  ad- 
vocate a  policy  of  fair  mail  compensation  that  shall  se- 
cure us  the  communication  with  new  markets  which  is 
indispensable  to  our  national  growth  and  prosperity  and 
help  us  regain  the  place  which  belongs  to  us  as  a  great 
ocean  carrying  and  maritime  nation. 

Mr.  Wells  seems  to  limit  the  word  "subsidy"  to 
extraordinary  "  payments.  As  he  does  not  consider 
the  $2,500,000  a  year  paid  by  England  to  the  Peninsular 
and  Oriental  Company  an  extraordinary  payment,  I  am 
sure  T  do  not  know  what  would  seem  extraordinary  " 
to  him.  But  this  I  do  know  :  That  England  paid  the 
Peninsular  and  Oriental  Company  $2.50  per  mile,  the 
Cunavd  Company  $2.80  per  mile,  and  the  West  Indian 
Company  $3.07  per  mile,  for  carryiug  the  mails;  while 
the  highest  contract  ever  asked  for  by  the  line  with 
which  I  was  identified  was  75  cents  per  mile,  or  only 
one  half  the  .amount  paid  to  the  Peninsular  and  Orien- 
tal, and  one  third  of  that  paid  to  the  West  Indian 
Im^f    WJiich  was  the  more  ' '  e:5traordinary in  thi§ 


54 


case 


^c*^.. ;  And  will  Mr.  AVells  explain  how  it  is  that  what 
is  not  subsidy  when  England  does  it,  becomes  "  sub- 
sidy  "  the  moment  it  is  proposed  here  ?  Will  he  tell  us 
how  it  happens  that  what  he  sees  white  in  England 
looks  so  black  to  him  in  America  ?  Is  he  one  of  those 
unfortunate  people  who  are  so  far-sighted  that  they  can 
never  see  anything  correctly  that  is  near  by. 

A  LAW  THAT  TAKES  POSSESSION  OF  CITIZEN'S  PHOPERTY 
WITHOUT  COMPENSATION. 

Then  it  should  be  noted  that  while  my  line  was  refused 
f  dir  compensation,  I  was  compelled  to  carry  the  maUs 
under  the  following  unjust  law :  '   ,  ^ 

"United  States  Statutes,  section  976:  The  master 
of  any  vessel  of  the  United  States,  bound  from  any  port 
therein  to  any  foreign  port,  or  from  any  foreign  port  to 
any  port  in  the  United  States,  shall,  before  clearance, 
receive  on  board  and  securely  convey  all  such  mails  as 
the  Post  Office  Department,  or  any  diplomatic  or  consu- 
lar agent  abroad  shall  offer,  and  he  shall  promptly  de- 
liver the  same  at  the  port  of  destination  to  the  proper 
officer  for  which  he  shall  receive  two  cents  for  every 
letter  so  delivered,  and  upon  the  entry  of  .  every  such 
vessel  returning  from  any  foreign  port  the  master  there- 
of shall  make  oath  that  he  has  promptly  delivered  all 
the  mail  placed  on  board  said  vessel  before  clearance 
from  the  United  States,  and  if  he  fail  to  make  such 
oath  the  vessel  shall  not  be  entitled  to  the  privileges  of 
a  vessel  of  the  United  States." 

CONTRASTS. 

While  the  Peninsular  and  Oriental  Company  was  get- 
ting from  England  $2.50  per  mile  for  carrying  her  mails 
five  American  lines  were  compelled  under  the  law  just 
quoted  to  carry  the  United  States  mails  1,181,309  miles, 
and  to  places  where  we  have  a  trade  of  $200,000,000  an- 
nually, at  the  rate  of  2i  cents  per  mile,  in  many  in- 
stances actually  suffering  loss  in  doing  this  compulsory 
service  Does  Mr.  Wells  consider  this  a  just  law  or  fair 
compensation  ?  Why  not  treat  the  railroads  in  same 
way  then,  in  carrying  our  mails  on  the  land  ^  Will  Mr. 
Wells  compare  with  this  the  treatment  accorded  the 
late  American  line  to  Brazil  by  our  Government,  when 
it  asked  no  guarantee,  only  $100,000  a  year  for  carrying 
the  mails  and  opening  up  a  new  market  from  which  we 
had  shut  ourselves  out  for  lack  of  Qommunication,  while 


55 


England  had  reaped  there  a  rich  commercial  harvest. 
Yet  the  Brazilian  line  was  trying  to  build  up  a  trade  tor 
this  country  against  this  English  subsidized  line. 

It  is  to  be  not-d  that  England's  peace  pohcy  of  sub- 
sidy was  pursued  with  as  much  vigor  as  her  war  pohcy 
had  been  to  drive  us  off  the  ocean,  and  while  England 
was  actively,  but  silently,  at  work  we  allowed  it  to  go 
on  Mr  Wells  and  others  like  him  being  engaged  m 
blinding  the  eyes  of  our  people  to  the  true  situation 
If  England  had  only  kept  up  a  war  pohcy  we  should 
have  met  her  every  time  in  that. 


FRANCE  ALSO  SUBSIDIZING. 

Mr  Wells  and  his  fellow  freetraders  say  that  ''free 
ships  "  is  all  we  want  to  revive  our  carrying  trade.  Does 
he  know  that  France  is  to-day  subsidizing  to  a  greater 
extent  than  England  ?  Yet  France  has  for  80  years  en- 
ioyed  that  privilege  of  buying  free  ships  from  England 
which  is  forever  prated  about  as  the  remedy  tor  our  dit- 
ficulties.  France  has  found,  however,  that  she  cannot 
run  these  ships  against  England's  subsidized  ships.  The 
French  Government  is  now  paying  five  millions  a  year  m 
subsidies  for  mail  service.  The  ships  now  running  to 
New  York  receives  $500,000  per  annum.  Besides,  France 
has  learned  at  last  that  the  only  way  to  be  a  great  ship- 
owning  nation  is  to  be  a  ship-building  nation,  and  has 
passed  a  general  law  offering  a  bounty  for  every  ship 
built  in  France  that  run£  in  the  foreign  trade.  The 
whole  meaning  of  this  policy  of  subsidizing  their  ships 
on  the  ocean  is  a  practical  plan  of  protection  to  those 
great  national  interests,  and  that  fact  is  well  understood 
both  in  England  and  France. 

Does  not  England  supply  her  own  people  with  ships 
and  as  cheap  as  she  would  supply  a  foreigner  ?  But  it 
she  has  to  subsidize  her  own  ships,  in  addition  to  having 
all  her  advantages  of  cheap  capital  and  labor  and  taxa- 
tion how  can  we  expect  to  succeed  in  the  competition 
if  we  do  not  pursue  a  like  policy  ?  And  it  is  worthy  of 
remark  that,  while  England  is  free  trade  on  the  land, 
the  facts  show  that  she  was  and  is  a  most  radical  pro- 
tectionist on  the  water,  giving  her  people  greater  Protec- 
tion and  better  facilities  than  any  other  nation.  And 
now  that  she  possesses  the  trade  and  advantages,  she 
can  well  afford  to  cry  out  about  making  it  all  free,  ihe 
trick  is  not  a  new  one  with  her. 


56 


ENGLAND'S  PROTECTION  TO  HER  STEAMSHIP  LINES. 

And  though  England  adopted  free  trade  in  the  broadest 
manner  where  it  served  her  purpose,  yet  to  her  steam- 
ship lines  she  gave  the  most  radical  protection.  And  as 
Mr.  Sherman  Crawford  said  in  his  great  speech,  when 
the  question  was  before  Parliament  of  renewing  the  mail 
contract  with  the  Peninsular  and  Oriental  Company,  *'  to 
refuse  to  renew  the  subsidy  to  English  lines,  and  to  let 
them  compete  with  the  highly-subsidized  French  lines, 
would  be  free  trade  gone  mad." 

To  show  that  the  English  Government  did  not  propose 
to  follow  the  free  trade  policy  to  that  extent,  I  will  give  a 
few  further  facts  concerning  the  Peninsular  aud  Oriental 
Company's  service.  The  contract  with  it  was  to  expire 
in  1868,  and  under  the  terms  the  Government  was  to 
give  the  company  notice  as  to  renewal  a  year  before  the 
expiration.  Notice  was  given  accordingly  in  1867. 
(Mark  that  from  1840  to  1867  this  line  was  receiving  a 
subsidy,  at  first  of  30  per  cent. ,  afterward  of  15  per  cent, 
on  its  capital  stock.)  In  consequence  of  our  civil  war, 
our  shipping  had  been  driven  from  the  ocean,  and  we 
were  no  longer  feared  as  a  rival  there.  That  fact  being 
appreciated,  the  English  neople  themselves  began  to  cry 
out  that,  as  we  had  been  driven  off  the  ocean  by  their 
policy  of  subsidy  and  our  civil  war,  their  purpose  was 
accomplished,  and  it  was  time  to  stop,  as  to  continue 
would  onlv  be  to  subsidize  one  Englishman's  interest 
against  another.  Quite  an  unfriendly  feeling  grew  up 
against  the  heavily-subsidized  lines,  and  the  Government 
decided  to  open  the  Oriental  Contract  for  competition, 
not  only  to  all  English  companies,  as  formerly,  but  to 
the  ships  of  other  nations.  I  will  give  ycu  some  extracts 
from  the  debate  on  that  subject  in  Parliament,  and  from 
the  English  pjess,  to  show  how  the  proposition  was  re- 
garded, and  the  feelings  of  the  English  people  about 
allowing  foreigners  to  carry  their  mails. 

HOW  PARLIAMENT  ENCOURAGED  FOREIGNERS. 

Mr.  Crawford,  M.  P.,  speaking  against  the  Govern- 
ment proposal,  said,  in  opening  th  debate  in  Parliament, 
that  ''wherever  postal  communication  has  been  ex- 
tended, there  commerce  has  invariably  been  attracted  ; 
in  fact,  the  conveyance  of  the  mails  has  proved  a  most 
efficient  agency  for  increasing  our  trade  in  all  parts  of 
the  world?'  This  is  a  point  worth  noting,  and  is  one 
that  I  have  always  maintained. 


57 


Mr.  Wells  asks,  in  his  letter  already  mmed,  What 
becomes  of  the  assertion  that  Great  Britain  has  achieved 
and  still  maintains  her  mercantile  supremacy  in  the 
carrying-  trade  of  the  ocean,  through  a  system  of  pay- 
ments for  mail  and  other  service,  extraordinary  in  their 
nature,  and  disproportionate  to  the  value  of  the  work 
performed,  and  with  some  other  intent  than  the  osten- 
sible object  for  which  the  payments  are  made  ?  "  Well, 
let  Mr.  Crawford  answer  Mr.  Wells.  He  ought  to  be 
good  authority  on  his  own  country's  affairs,  and  he 
says  : 

"  I,  for  one,  hold  that  there  are  considerations  to  be 
taken  into  account  in  this  matter,  which  are  wholly 
apart  from  the  question  of  the  profit  and  loss  arising 
upon  the  accounts  of  the  Post  Office.  This  difference  is 
not  considerable  ;  but  whatever  it  is,  that  difference 
represents  the  whole  cost,  to  this  country,  of  the  means 
by  which  not  only  the  commercial,  but  the  social  and 
political  connection  between  this  country  and  the  world 
is  kept  up." 

SIR  CHARLES  WOOD   ON  VALUE  OF   POSTAL  COMMUNI- 
CATIONS. 

Sir  Charles  Wood,  who  is  an  authority  second  to  none, 
wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Post  Office  in  October, 
1867 : 

It  has  been  the  perception  of  the  bearing  of  in- 
creased postal  communication  on  the  wealth  and  progress 
of  the  country,  that  has  induced  statesmen  of  late  years 
to  consent  to  fiscal  sacrifices  for  the  purpose  of  obtain- 
ing it.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  increased  postal 
communication  implies  increasing  relations,  increased 
commerce,  increased  investment  of  English  capital,  and 
from  all  these  sources  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of  Eng- 
land are  greatly  increased." 

I  commend  those  views  to  the  theorists  who  make 
light  of  the  value  of  postal  communication  as  a  neces- 
sity to  the  building  up  of  commerce.  Do  they  not  show 
that  England  did  pay  subsidies  for  some  further  purpose 
than  simply  the  carrying  of  the  mails  ?  But  speaking 
of  the  proposal  to  afford  to  foreign  companies  the  power 
of  competing, 


58 


MR.    CRAWFORD   THUS   VIGOROUSLY  PROTESTED 
AGAINST  IT  : 

"  Now,  what  I  desire  to  do  on  this  occasion,  is  to  pro- 
test in  the  name  of  the  interest  of  the  country  and  of 
commerce,  and  in  justice  to  our  own  companies,  against 
the  ships  of  the  Messageries  Imperiales,  or  of  any  other 
foreign  company,  being  employed  in  the  conveyance  of 
our  mails.  (Loud  cheers  from  all  parts,  of  the  house.) 
You  may  carry  the  prindpre  of  economy  too  far.  (Hear, 
hear.)  Such  a  course  of  proceeding  would  be  free  trade 
gonemady    (Renewed  cheers.) 

"  I  am  convinced  that  the  subject  has  not  been  suffi- 
ciently considered.  For  what  would  be  the  position  of 
this  country  in  the  event  of  a  war  or  any  interruption  of 
existing  relations  taking  place  ?  Supposing  the  Messa- 
geries Imperiales  or  any  other  foreign  company  be 
awarded  the  contracts  for  our  mail  service,  w^hat  would 
be  the  position  of  our  commerce  in  the  event  of  our 
being  unfortunately  engaged  in  hostilities  with  the 
country  with  whose  people  the  contract  has  been  entered 
into  ?  or  even  in  the  event  of  that  countrv  being  at  war 
with  some  other  ?    (Hear,,  Hear. ") 

FREE  TRADERS  GONE  MAD.  • 

I  want  to  call  special  attention  to  the  above  sound 
suggestions,  because  it  has  been  asserted  here  that  it 
makes  no  difference  at  all  whether  we  carry  our  own 
mails  or  have  foreigners  carry  them,  so  that  they-  are 
carried  most  cheaply.  That  certainly  was  not  England's 
view^  or  policy.  And  I  would  like  to  ask  any  sensible 
man  this  question.  If  England  had  lost  her  carrying  and 
merchant  marine  under  such  circumstances  as  we  did, 
through  our  war,  and  if  it  had  been  declared  that 
England  would  be  better  off  to  let  France  carry  her 
n\ails,  and  to  buy  w^hat  few^  ships  she  could  get  from 
France  instead  of  securing  the  means  to  build  them  at 
home ;  if,  moreover,  when  a  proposal  was  made  to  estab- 
lish steamship  lines  to  carry  the  mails  to  new  ports 
which  needed  to  be  opened  up  to  commerce  and  give  to 
Enghsh  producers  new  markets,  a  great  outcry  was 
made  about  "Subsidy";  if,  in  short,  any  Englishman 
had  talked  so  unpatriotically  and  absurdly  and  mis- 
represented things  so  baldly  as  Mr.  Wells,  the  Evening 
Post  and  other  of  our  newspaper  theorists  have  done, 
would  not  Mr.  Crawford,  yes,  and  even  Mr.  Colden 
himself  have  said  that  they  were     free-traders  gone 


59 


THE  VIGILANCE  OF  ENGLAND. 

Now  on  another  point  of  national  importance,  read 
what  Mr.  Crawford  says  in  Parliament  while  the  subject 
was  under  discussion. 

'*I  am  of  opinion  that  there  is  a  question  of  grave 
national  policy  involved  in  our  maintaining  these  great 
lines.  And  the  French  seeing  this,  it  has  been  a  part 
of  their  policy  for  years  past  to  construct  a  commercial 
marine  of  their  own,  propelled  by  steam,  which  shall 
enable  them  to  compete  with  the  large  companies  of  this 
country.  The  French  have  seen  what  the  Peuinsular 
and  Oriental  Company's  ships  did  in  the  Crimean  war. 
They  then  carried  upwards  of  60,000  men  from  this 
country,"  2,000  officers,  and  between  11,000  and  12,000 
horses.  We  know,  also,  what  the  Peninsular  and  Oriental 
Company  did  at  the  time* of  the  Indian  mutiny.  Where 
should  we  have  been  if  its  vessels  had  not  been  in 
existence  then  to  take  out  our  troops  and  military  stores  f 
(Hear,  Hear).  We  know,  too,  what  was  done  by  another 
company  in  the  Trent"  afPair.  We  know  how  10,000 
men  were  sent  out  to  Canada  by  the  Cunard  line  of 
steamers  and  other  vessels,  almost  at  a  day's  notice. 

OUR   STJqSSIDIES  TO  FOREIGN  LINES  CREATING  A  NAVY 
TO  BE  USED  AGAINST  US. 

Yes,  in  America  we  know  that,  and  we  know,  too,  by 
the  official  statistics  in  the  Post-Office  Department ^at 
Washington,  that  during  those  years  from  1860  to  1870, 
the  United  States  Government  was  nursing  this  foreign 
line  to  strike  back  at  our  life  by  paying  over  $3,798,000 
to  it  for  carrying  our  mails.  It  is  strange  that  Mr. 
Wells  and  the  Evening  Post  never  notice  facts  like  this, 
which  show  how  fine  a  policy  it  is  to  be  dependent  upon 
foreign  nations.  We  were  virtually  paying  a  subsidy  to 
the  Cunard  line.  And  to  pay  our  money  to  foreigners 
for  carrying  our  mails  is  nothing  less  than  to  raise  up  a 
navy  to  be  turned  sometime  against  ourselves.  I  say 
what  we  want  to  do  instead  is  to  raise  up  an  auxiliary 
navy  of  our  own. 

POLITICAL  INSANITY. 

But  to  conclude  with  Mr.  Crawford,  he  said  strongly  : 
' '  Now  I  enter  my  protest  against  any  act  on  the  part  of  Her 
Majesty's  Government  which  shall  saddle  this  country 
witli  a  contract  either  with  the  Messageries  Imperxale^ 


60 


or  any  other  foreign  company  (loud  and  general  cheer- 
ing). I  hold  that  puch  a  couise  would  be  contrary  to 
public  policy  ;  that  it  would  be  unfair  and  unjust  to  the 
Peninsular  and  Orient;. 1  Company  and  that  it  would  be  , 
an  act  of  'political  insaniti/  for  us  to  put  such  a  weapon 
into  the  hands  of  any  foreign  Government  whatever ;  and 
more  especially  so,  bearing  in  mind  that  the  w^eapon 
thus  put  into  their  hands  has  been  first  taken  out  of 
our  own.     (Loud  cheers. ) 

I  call  that  a  sound  and'  national  view,  and  a  pretty 
conclusive  auswer  to  the  question,  whether  England  had 
any  object  in  view  save  simply  the  carrying  of  her  mails 
at  the  lowest  figure.  We  did  not  accept  this  view  when 
between  186  M8T0,  as  I  have  shown,  we  paid  from  three 
to  four  millions  to  place  such  a  weapon  in  English  hands 
and  had  it  turned  against  us  by  the  sending  over  of  war 
ships  to  Canada  to  menace  us  in  the  Trent  affair. 

THE  PENINSULAR  COMPANY  SUSTAINED  BY  SUBSIDY. 

Mr.  Wells  says  the  company  was  not  maintained  by  its 
subsidy.  Well,  I  find  in  Herapath's  Railway  Journal  of 
August  8,  1867,  the  statement  that  the  captital  stock  of 
the  Peninsular  and  Oriental  fell  from  £3,500,000  to 
£2,000,000  or  £1,500,000  (17,500,000);  and  this  com- 
ment : 

' '  The  cause  of  this  immense  depreciation  is  no  doubt 
the  fear  that  the  company  will  lose  the  mail  contract, 
and  that  it  will  be  given  to  the  French  company  in  order 
to  save  a  little  money.  We,  and  we  think  the  country 
at  large,  would  be  horrified  if  the  carriage  of  our  mails 
were  handed  over  to  the  French.  We  should  almost  as 
much  desire  tbe  French  to  undertake  our  military  ser- 
vice as  our  postal.  People  who  imagine  that  the  ques- 
tion at  issue  concerns  only  the  private  int  rests  of  the 
Peninsular  and  Oriental  shareholders  make  a  great  mis- 
take. That  great  company's  vessels  the  pride  of  the 
ocean.  Should  the  British  Government  cripple  the 
Peninsular  and  Oriental  by  taking  away  the  mail  service 
from  them  ?  Shall  they  iDe  compelled  to  sell  this  mag- 
niffcient  fleet  of  seventy  ships,  pull  down  the  English 
and  hoist  the  French  flag  ?  Shall  3.000  English  officers 
and  sailors  leave  these  ships  and  be  replaced  by  an  equal 
number  of  French?  Shall  this  country  discard  this 
powerful  aid  to  our  navy  and  thus  build  up  a  French 
novy  ?  Of  course,  the  country  could  not  grumble  if  this 
were  done,  for  this  Government  woulcl  be  the  cause 


61 


While,  as  Dr.  Wells  says,  the  dividend  paid  by  the 
Company  was  only  3  per  cent. ,  the  Government  was 
paying  them  over  15  per  cent.  If  the  Government  had 
not  decided  to  sustain  the  English  line  against  the 
French,  who  were  the  lowest  bidders,  does  Mr.  Wells 
think  the  Peninsular  and  Oriental,  with  its  70  ships, 
would  be  in  existence  to-day  ?  Would  not  the  French 
line,  already  heavily  subsidized  by  its  own  Government, 
have  driven  the  other  from  the  sea,  if  it  had  only  ob- 
tained the  English  subsidy  ?  Certainly  it  would,  just 
as  the  English  1  ne  drove  the  Collins  line  off  when  our 
Government  refused  to  sustain  it. 

France  and  England  were  engaged  in  a  fight  of  sub- 
sidy against  subsidy,  while  we  alone  starved  the  Collins 
line.  Mr.  Collins  could  not  compete  with  Mr.  Cunard 
and  the  English  treasury,  and  down  came  our  flag.  The 
English  Government  sustained  Mr.  Cunard  and  honored 
him  with  knighthood,  while  Mr.  Collins  was  ruined  m 
his  effort  to  sustain  our  steam  marine  on  the  ocean. 

SUBSIDY  A  FAMILIAR  WORD  IN  ENGLAND. 

A  word  more  to  show  that  when  Mr.  Wells  says 
England  did  not  pursue  a  policy  of  subsidy  he  not  only 
misrepresents  Mr.  Higgins  and  the  English  statesmen, 
but  the  English  press. 

In  the  London  Daily  News  of  August  14,  1864,  an 
editorial  on  the  Peninsular  and  Oriental  Company,  which 
Mr.  Wells  declares  was  not  and  is  not  subsidized,  I  read: 

"  To  abandon  the  present  system  of  subsidizing  a  pri- 
vate company  would  be  to  abandon  those  advantages 
which  experience  has  proved  to  attend  it ;  to  employ  a 
foreign  company  exclusively  would  be  practically  to 
transfer  the  lines  of  communication  into  hands  whicli 
might  some  day  prove  hostile,  and  that  without  a  mo- 
ment's warning." 

That  means  sound  sense  and  statesmanship  as  well  as 
subsidy. 

And  to  caution  Mr.  Wells  before  he  again  asserts  that 
whoever  says  England  pursued  a  policy  of  subsidy  is 
thereby  guilty  of  the  historic  lie,"  I  commend  to  him 
this  from  the  London  Morning  Star,  of  August  3,  1867  : 

"It  cannot  be  forgotten,  however,  that  the  system 
which  has  prevailed  hitherto  in  this  country  of  suhsidiz- 
ing  powerful  companies,  with  the  view  of  promoting 
speedy  trans-oceanic  communication,  has  been  produc- 
tive of  the  greatest  possible  benefits  to  commerce  and 
served  many  other  patriotic  ends.    We  have  seen  a  trade 


62 


of  colossal  magnitude  grow  up  between  this  country  and 
foreign  nations.  No  one  can  doubt  that  the  rapid  and 
certain  means  of  communication  provided  by  the  Penin- 
sular and  Oriental  Company  have  most  powerfully  aided 
the  growth  of  that  commerce,  although  the  Company  in 
its  turn  may  have  participated  in  the  prosperity.  We 
are  not  disposed  to  go  into  the  further  questions  as  to 
the  packet  services  being  nurseries  for  the  navy  and 
naval  auxiliaries.  All  our  mercantile  marine  is  necessa- 
rily, in  some  sense,  a  species  of  naval  reserve.  ...  It  is 
enough  that  England  requires  and  must  have  the  most 
powerful  and  swiftest  mail  steamers  which  can  be  pro- 
cured, and  that  to  secure  this  benefit  she  is  ready  to  pay 
a  remvneratite  'price  to  the  companies  which  come  for- 
ward to  do  the  work  and  to  enable  us  to  reach  and  con- 
trol foreign  markets. 

This  is  another  answer  to  Mr.  Wells'  assertion  that 
England  paid  for  mail  service  merely  and  only  a  fair 
compensation.  It  will  be  good  reading  also  for  those 
who  say  it  makes  no  difference  whether  a  nation  does  its 
own  carrying  or  hires  it  done  and  runs  the  risk  of 
foreign  complication?,  so  long  as  it  gets  it  done  at  the 
cheapest  rate. 

The  London  Morning  Post  again  says  : 

In  looking  at  this  question  we  must  not  confine  our- 
selves to  a  mere  consideration  of  the  postal  require- 
ments, but  we  must  remember  that  the  possession  of  a 
splendid  fleet  of  first-class  steamers,  the  nursery  of 
hardy  seamen  and  the  prestige  of  the  British  flag  in 
foreign  ports,  is  not  to  be  lightly  cast  aside  because 
adventitious  aids  to  a  foreign  enterprise  might  enable 
as  to  show  a  most  unwisely  prized  economy." 

It  w^ould  be  worth  a  vast  deal  to  this  country  if -we  had 
a  press  that  watched  our  interests  in  a  like  national 
spirit,  instead  of  always  looking  out  specially  for  a 
foreign  interest. 

But  now  I  hope  I  have  proved  enongh  to  settle  this 
question  about  subsidy.  It  makes  no  difference  whether 
the  word  is  used  in  the  sense  of  ordinary  or  extraordinary 
payments,  or  whether  it  is  used  at  all.  ^  The  fact  is  sim- 
ply this  :  Great  Britain  built  up  her  carrying  trade  and 
her  commerce,  as  I  said  all  along,  by  paying  such  liberal 
compensation  to  English  steamship  companies  as  enabled 
them  profitably  to  carry  her  mails  and  thus  to  give  regular 
and  direct  means  of  communication  to  her  merchants 
and  give  to  her  producers  the  advantage  of  reaching  new 
markets  over  the  merchants  of  other  nations.  Her  policy 


63 


was  and  is  more  radical  than  has  ever  been  proposed  or 
favored  by  me.  And  what  I  think  there  is  just  cause  to 
complain  of  is  the  fact  that  Mr.  Wells,  the  Evening  Post, 
and  that  class  of  theorists  who  only  own  and  mn  ships 
and  other  enterprises  on  paper,  consider  as  all  right  in 
England,  the  very  thing — i.  e. ,  fair  pay  for  carrying  the 
mails — that  they  declare  to  be  all  wrocg  here,  and  do 
their  best  to  misrepresent  and  malign  as  subsidy  ;  even 
calling  it  a  subsidy  for  a  special  person,  when  they  know 
well  that  in  no  instance,  directly  or  indirectly,  can  they 
show  as  a  fact  that  either  myself  or  Mr.  Higgins,  or  any 
one  else  friendly  to  the  American  shipping  interest  has 
ever  asked  for  anything  more  than  fair  compensation 
for  carrying  the  mails,  and  that  the  contract  be  adver- 
tised an,d  the  competition  thrown  open  to  all.  All  that 
has  been  asked  is  to  apply  the  same  rule  to  our  ocean 
mail  service  that  is  applied  to  our  land  and  coast 
service.  And  now  will  Mr.  Wells  acknovvledge  that  the 
English  press  and  English  statesmen  knew  they  were 
advocating  a  plain,  simple  subsidy  for  other  purposes 
than  mail  compensation;  and  if  the  "  historic  lie  "  has 
been  told,  it  lies  between  Mr.  Wells,  the  English  press, 
and  the  majority  of  the  English  Parliament,  for  they 
voted  the  renewal  of  the  Oriental  subsidy,  and  refused, 
after  inviting  the  French  to  bid,  to  give  them  the  con- 
tract, though  they  were  much  lower.  I  ask  Mr.  Wells 
if  the  contract  had  been  given  to  the  French  line  would 
the  Oriental  line  be  in  existence  to-day  ? 

I  have  shown  how  the  English  statesmen  and  press 
regarded  a  proposal  to  have  their  mails  carried  by  for- 
eigners. Who  will  explain  how  it  happens  that  these 
free  trade  and  free  ship  theorists  c-f  our  own  country 
never  see  any  hope  for  us  in  any  proposition  that  would 
build  up  home  industries  and  homft  interests,  never  see 
any  plan  they  can  approve  except  a  plan  that  will  build 
up  English  industries  and  rnteres^ts  ?  How  comes  it 
that  these  men  who  are  always  advocating  a  policy  that 
will,  even  if  it  helps  us  at  all  as  they  claim,  yet  helps 
England  first  by  getting  her  to  build  our  ships  ?  To  my 
miud  they  are  worse  than  free  traders  gone  mad,"  and 
as  little  confidence  is  to  bo  placed  in  their  professions  as  in 
their  gratuitous  giving  of  the  "  historic  lie  "  to  a  man  who 
dares  to  state  a  historic  fact. 

That  was  all  Mr.  Higgins  did  ;  and  Mr.  Higgins,  who 
probably  has  had  more  to  do  with  shipp  ng  and  knows 
more  about  it  than  any  other  man  in  the  country,  cannot 
make  such  a  statement  of  fact  without  being  accu&e^cj.  of 


64 


falsehood,  and  abused  by  those  men  who  have  no  prac- 
tical knowledge  of  the  subject  whatever,  and  whose 
interest  like  their  knowledge  is  all  derived  from  foreign 
sources.  Mr.  Higgins  has  even  been  charged  with  being 
an  agent  of  mine,  because  he  happens  to  hold  views 
similar  to  mine  in  some  respects  as  to  a  proper  Amer- 
ican national  policy  to  regain  our  h)st  place  on  the 
ocean.  But  Mr.  Higgins'  reputation  will  not  suffer  from 
such  assaults.  It  is  always  the  last  resort,  when  a  man 
cannot  answer  with  arguments,  to  answer  with  aspersion 
and  misrepresentation.  But  the  truth  prevails  in  the 
end. 

A  MISREPRESENTATION  CORRECTED. 

I  have  given  the  facts  about  subsidy  as  regarded- 
and  legislated  upon  in  England.  The  truth  of  my  state- 
ments can  be  proved  by  anybody.  Now,  to  a  remark 
made  by  Mr.  Wells  personal  to  myself.  In  his  letter 
published  Feb.  19th,  he  says  : 

"But  now  comes  forward  John  Roach,  and  says  to 
Congress  and  the  country,  '  If  you  will  pay  me  an  extra 
sum,  sufficient  to  make  good  the  loss  which  inevitably 
accrues  in  building  and  sailing  ships  under  your  laws 
and  policy,  and  a  profit  besides,  I  will  build  and  sail 
your  ships  and  do  some  of  your  ocean  carrying  trade.'' 

Now,  I  challenge  Mr.  Wells,  as  a  fair  man,  to  prove 
these  words.  If  he  is  informed  on  the  subject  he  knows 
they  are  not  true.  I  call  upon  him  to  produce  any  bill 
advocated  by  me  that  does  not  propose  simply  the  pay- 
ment of  a  fair  compensation  for  service  actually  ren- 
dered in  carrying  the  United  States  mails,  and  to  award 
a  contract  for  a  term  of  years  for  such  service,  throwing 
open  the  competition  to  all,  and  awarding  the  contract 
publicly  to  the  lowest  responsible  bidder  guaranteeing 
to  furnish  the  service  required,  the  ships,  of  course,  to 
be  American  built  and  owned  and  run  under  aur  laws 
and  flag.  As  an  honorable  man  he  should  either  prove 
or  retract  such  a  statement. 

AMERICAN  STATESMEN  ON  SUBSIDY. 

Just  a  word  more,  to  place  Mr.  Wells  and  his  fellow 
free  trade  professors  and  theorists  (who  build  and  own 
ships,  and  conduct  great  industries  only  on  paper,  and 
would  make  sad  havoc  with  capital  if  it  were  placed  in 
their  hands  to  be  practically  used)  between  the  upper 
and  nether  millstones  of  both  English  and  American 
statesmanship. 


65 


WASHINGTON'S    ANXIETY    FOR    OUR    COMMERCE  AND 
AGRICULTURE. 

President  Washington  said,  in  his  second  annual  mes- 
sage : 

• '  I  recommend  to  your  serious  reflection  how  far 
and  in  what  mode  it  may  be  expedient  to  guard  against 
embarrassments  from  these  contingencies  [danger  to  our 
goods  carried  in  foreign  ships  by  war] ,  by  such  encourage- 
ment to  our  own  navigation  as  will  render  our  commerce 
and  agriculture  less  dependent  on  foreign  bottoms  which 
may  fail  us  in  the  very  moment  most  interesting  to  both 
of  these  great  objects." 

JAMES  Iv.  POLK  ON  PANDERING  TO  BRITISH  POWER. 

Mr.  Polk,  in  debate  in  Congress  upon  a  grant  of  subsidy 
to  the  Collins  line  said  : 

^'  It  is  strange,  sir,  that  men  who  are  presumed  to  em- 
body the  wisdom  of  the  land,  should  have  to  be  reminded 
that  they  are  pandering  to  British  poicer — that  they  are 
forgetting  American  interest,  and  losing  sight  of  that 
greatness  and  grandeur  which  attaches  to  this  American 
Government.  I  stand  upo:i  the  floor  of  the  American 
Congress  and  find  men  who  are  willing  to  measure  our 
greatness  by  the  circumference  of  a  dollar — a  dollar, 
sir— measure  American  prosperity,  American  greatness 
by  a  round  dollar,  and  thus  pander  to  British  interests,  to 
bow  the  pliant  knee  and  say  to  the  power  that  assailed 
as  at  Lexington,  that  flashed  the  first  guns  from 
Bunker  Hill,  that  fought  us  upon  sea  and  land  in  1812, 
that  has  been  jealous  of  our  prosperity  and  greatness 
ever  since — '  Good  mother,  won't  you  carry  our  mails  for 
us  ?  V  Why,  sir,  I  scorn,  I  despise,  this  anti- American 
feeling  and  sentiment.  The  men  who  stand  battling 
upon  these  principles  are  behind  the  age.  They  are  be- 
hind the  progress  of  their  country,  they  know  nothing  of 
its  power  or  its  influence,  and  are  contributing  to  a  com- 
bination of  foreign  policy  designed  to  overslaugh  us.  ' 

Never  were  there  truer  words,  or  fuller  of  foresight, 
and  just  such  men  as  then  fought  for  British  interests  find 
their  allies  and  representatives  to-day  in  Mr.  vVells  and 
his  companions.  Mr.  Bayard,  the  father  of  the  present 
Senator,  said  in  1852,  while 

ADVOCATING  JUSTICE   TO  THE  COLLINS  LINE  : 

"  I  am  willing  to  trust  American  pkill  and  industry 
in  competition  with  any  people  on  the  globe,  when  they 


66 


staud  nation  to  nation,  without  government  interference. 
But  if  the  treasuiy  of  i\  foreign  nation  is  poured  into 
the  lap  of  individuals  f^r  the  purpose  of  destroying  the 
interests  of  my  country,  or  for  building  up  a  commercial 
marine  .-it  the  expense  of  the  commerce  and  prosperity 
of  the  United  States,  I,  for  one,  will  count  no  cost  in 
comitervailin:^-  such  governmental  action  on  the  part  of 
Ciicat  Britain  or  any  foreign  power. 

lb  has  been  objected  that  these  grants  create  a 
moriupoh\  *  "  If  the  argument  be  true,  I  ask  you 
if  ]b  dues  not  apply  to  the  transportation,  of  your  mails 
by  land.  "  Then  the  whole  government  action  is  a 
series  of  monopolies  as  regards  the  'Post  Office 
Service.'  ,     ,  i. 

IIo  ihon  argued  that  ifc  was  not  monopoly,  but 
Aiiiericnu  competition  against  British  monopoly. 

Wi  !  Tou  adopt  a  policy  w^hich  will  place  the  entire 
tra D spc  i  ion  of  3' our  mailsunder  their  (British ;  control ; 
which  Will  put  into  their  hands  the  transportation  of 
pa.-^e:^^el  <  which  will  lay  a  tax  on  American  citizens,  for 
t-io  rdvL'ii cement  of  British  commerce,  their  freights, 
etc.  ?  h'-ic  i  may  be  the  j-.idgment  of  the  honorable 
LVnator,  I  ut  it  is  not  mine,  and  I  trust  it  will  not  be  that 
of  the  American  Senate.  - 

The  mail -service  in  this  and  in  all  countries  on  land 
is  a  government  duty,  and  with  all  great  maritime 
nations  which  have  the  power  to  control  that  service  on 
the  ocean,  it  is  as  much  a  government  duty,  where  there 
maritime  interests  are  concerned,  where  their  extensive 
commerce  is  concerned,  as  is  on  land  the  proper  trans- 
portation of  correspondence  The  mail-service  with 
forc;ign  countries,  on  any  principle  that  I  can  appreciate, 
is  as  much  a  governmental  duty,  and  demands  as  much 
the  expenditure  and  the  attention  of  the  government  as 
transportation  of  correspondence  in  the  interior  of  the 
country.''  . 

Just  this  thing  of  placing  our  mails  under  British  and 
foreign  control  has  come  to  pass,  and  these  views  w^ere 
as  prophetic  as  they  are  sound.  They  commend  tliem- 
selves  to  all  citizens  ia  and  out  of  Congress,  who  love 
their  own  country  first  and  best. 

LEWIS  CASS  ON  PIlOTECTIO^■. 

Lewis  Cass  said  in  the  Senate,  on  the  same  subject ; 
Well,  sir,  it  is  a  question  of  protection— of  high  and 
important  and  holy  projection— in  the  best  sense  of  the 


67 


term;  the  protection  of  our  country,  of  our  expatriated 
seamen,  of  our  commerce,  of  our  interests,  of  our  honor, 
of  our  soil  of  all  that  gives  dignity  and  character  to  na- 
tions ;  protection  against  defeat,  disgrace,  and  dishonor 
on  the  sea.  This  kind  of  protection  to  our  commerce  is 
as  effectual  as  the  protection  afforded  by  expensive 
naval  armaments." 

A  CONGRESSIONAL  COMMITTEE  FAVORING  SUBSIDIES. 

A  Congressional  Select  Committee  on  the  cause  of  the 
reduction  of  American  tonnage,  reported  in  1871 ,  recom- 
mending as  a  remedy  the 

''Granting  of  government  aid  by  way  of  postages 
on  mails  and  by  subsidies,  so  as  to  insure  the 
establishment  of  American  ocean  lines  of  steamers 
to  foreign-  ports,  thus  securing  to  our  people  the 
profits  of  the  trade  so  created,"  and  saying  that ''no 
people  on  earth,  as  well  as  those  of  the  United  States, 
understand  so  fully  the  vast  wealth  developed  and 
created  by  railroad  lines.  '  The  analogy  is  perfect  as  to 
ocean  routes.  They  are  the  rail-  oads  of  the.  ocean, 
making  the  world  pay  tribute  to  us,  and  creating  vast 
markets  for  our  products  and  manufactures.  We  give 
millions  to  the  one ;  shall  we  hesitate  at  a  few  thousands 
for  the  other  ?  " 

The  man  nowadays,  who  believes  as  these  men  be- 
lieved, is  hounded  .as  a  subsidy  beggar,  but  right  will 
prevail  when  the  question  is  understood.  ' 

EX- SECRETARY  EVARTS  ON^  SUBSIDY  POLICY. 

Ex-Secretary  Evarts  said,  in  an  address  to  an 
export  convention,  ''that  thire  was  great  prejudice 
against  the  word  subsidy, but  that  without  the  judicious 
use  of  such  a  policy,  "with  our  natural  products  and 
manufacturing  facilities  weVere  becoming  the  laughing 
stock  of  other  nations." 

PROVEN  FACTS  'DS.   UNCONFIRMED  ASSERTIONS. 

These  examples  must  suffice.  Where  does  Mr.  Weil;- 
stand  between  these  statesmen  of  England  and  our  own 
land?  Against  Mr.  Wells'  repeated  assertion  that  the 
English  Ciovernment  has  not  and  does  not  pay  subsidier? 
I  have  placed  the  English  official  contracts,  the  declara- 
tions of  English  statesmen,  and  the  testimony  of  the 


68 


English  press,  that  she  has  and  does  pay  them,  and  that 
the  English  people  understand,  appreciate,  and  approve 
the  policy,  having  seen  its  glorious  results  in  winning 
peacefully  |or  England  what  she  never  could  have  won 
by  war  in  commerce  and  carrying. 

OUR  OWN  TEOPLE  WILL, 

I  am  convinced,  likewise  approve  it  as  soon  as 
they  come  to  understand  it  and  appreciate  what 
it  has  done  for  England;  that  it  is  not  the  wrong 
and  wasteful  spending,  of  their  money,  but  a  small 
amount  paid  out  that  will  return  payment  a  hundred 
and  a  thousand  fold;  not  only  in  opening  up  for  us  the 
new  markets  we  need  and  in  building  up  our  commerce 
and  developing  our  industries  and  resources,  but  in  pro- 
viding for  the  national  independence  and  safety  and  in 
upholding  the  national  dignity  and  honor  among  the 
great  nations  of  the  earth. 

And  all  that  is  asked  of  Mr.  Wells  and  his  fellow 
theorists  is  that  they  shall  be  fair  in  their  statements 
and  stick  to  the  facts. 


